High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit petition dismissed; without prejudice to t...
ANIL KUMAR M.R. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS
Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anil K. Narendran
- P.G. Ajithkumar
- Judgment Date
- 2023-07-05
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition dismissed. The court held that the petition could not be ordered for an investigation based solely on Ext. P1–P58 materials and newspaper reports; there were no prima facie materials to warrant investigations, especially since VACB already conducted a preliminary inquiry and found no offences. It dismissed the petition without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to approach the appropriate authorities to ventilate his grievance.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed; without prejudice to the petitioner approaching appropriate authorities for remedy; contentions left open.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- ANIL KUMAR M.R.
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by its Chief Secretary, Kerala
- Secretary to Government Public Works Department, Kerala Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom Department), Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- Travancore Devaswom Board Devaswom Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram
- Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pathanamthitta
- Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pathanamthitt a
- Chief Engineer (Public Works), Public Works Department Office Complex, Thiruvananthapuram
- Director, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi
- Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • R. Krishna Raj
- • E. Soni Kumari
- • Sangeetha S. Nair
- • Resmi A.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri S. Rajmohan - Sr Government Pleader
- • Sri G. Biju - Standing Counsel, Travancore Devaswom Board
- • Adv Manu S., DSG of India
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioner, a devotee of Lord Ayyappa, challenged alleged substandard construction along the Sabarimala route in Pathanamthitta, claiming roads, culverts and bridges were built deviating from approved estimates and with inferior materials. He lodged Ext. P1 with the Director of Vigilance and VACB, and sought a thorough probe into the last 15 years of construction. Ext. P5 contains a VACB report, which concluded no malpractices requiring vigilance investigation, but the petitioner contends that the authorities did not conduct proper inquiries and relied on superficial verifications. He produced Exts. P13–P58 consisting of newspaper reports and photographs alleging faulty construction, and sought mandamus to form a Special Investigation Team to examine major road works, pilgrim shelters at Nilakkal, Pamba bathing steps, and the Annadana Mandapam at Sannidhanam. He also sought Union of India to reveal utilization of funds under schemes such as PMGSY. The respondents argued that the petition is vague, with no concrete material to warrant a probe; a preliminary VACB inquiry found no offences; the remedy lies in Vigilance Court or RTI channels, or at least in approaching appropriate authorities. The court dismissed the petition, holding that extraordinary interference under Article 226 requires prima facie materials and that newspaper reports cannot justify a wide investigation; it left open the petitioner’s rights to pursue remedies with competent authorities.
Provisions of Law Cited
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaEvidence Act, 1872, Section 78(2)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute; alternative remedies must be considered (Mathew K.C. and Chhabil Dass Agarwal)
- High Court should not ordinarily exercise extraordinary jurisdiction where statutory or efficacious remedies exist (Chhabil Dass Agarwal)
- Writ petitions should not be entertained if an effective remedy is available, except in well-defined exceptional circumstances (Thansingh Nathmal; Titaghur Paper Mills)
- Newspaper reports are not reliable as sole basis for ordering investigations (Laxmi Raj Shetty)
- A writ cannot be ordered without prima facie substantiation of the allegations; caution against encroachment on executive/legislative spheres (Holicow Pictures)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that enroute to Sabarimala in Pathanamthitta District, roads, culverts and bridges have deteriorated due to substandard construction and lack of proper monitoring. Ext.P1 alleged deviations from approved estimates and substandard materials; Ext.P5 VACB report allegedly failed to conduct a proper inquiry and the matter was inappropriately closed. The petitioner seeks a Special Investigation Team with a writ of mandamus to investigate the quality and maintenance of the major road works, Nilakkal pilgrim shelters, Pamba bathing steps, and the Annadana Mandapam at Sannidhanam; and a demand that the Union of India disclose fund utilization under PMGSY and other schemes. He argues that Vigilance’s preliminary inquiry cannot quash substantiated concerns and that the courts should order a full, transparent investigation by a competent agency. Respondents: The respondents contend that the petition is vague and lacks concrete material to justify an investigation. They point to the VACB’s preliminary inquiry concluding no wrongdoing, the availability of a Vigilance Court remedy or RTI to obtain data, and the sufficiency of statutory mechanisms for redressal. They emphasize that Article 226 relief is discretionary and should be exercised only when no adequate remedy exists; reliance is placed on constitutional and judicial precedents limiting interference and cautioning against reliance on newspaper reports alone.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submitted that the petition is vague and lacks tangible evidence of corruption or irregularities. They cited the VACB report Ext. P5 indicating no offences and argued for alternative remedies (Vigilance Court/RTI). They asserted that a writ of mandamus directing an SIT would be inappropriate given the lack of prima facie material, the availability of statutory redressal mechanisms, and the risk of encroaching upon executive functions. They stressed that the court should follow the policy that Article 226 relief is not to be routinely granted where efficacious remedies exist, save for exceptional cases where statutory provisions or natural justice principles demand interference. They also argued that relying on newspaper reports or photographs alone cannot justify a broad, proactive investigation, and that the petitioner should present concrete material or approach appropriate authorities for redress.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal | [(2014) 1 SCC 603] | Positive | Cited to support the principle that a writ under Article 226 should not be entertained if an efficacious alternative remedy exists, reflecting discretionary restraint. |
| Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. | [(2018) 3 SCC 85] | Positive | Cited for the proposition that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute and should consider alternative remedies. |
| Holicow Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra | [(2007) 14 SCC 281] | Positive | Cited to emphasize the need for credentials, non-vagueness, seriousness, and caution in ordering investigations based on public grievances. |
| Laxmi Raj Shetty and another v. State of Tamil Nadu | [(1988) 3 SCC 319] | Positive | Cited to indicate that newspaper reports are hearsay and cannot be treated as proof for ordering investigations. |
| Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes | [AIR 1964 SC 1419] | Positive | Cited as part of the consistent rule that writs should not intervene where there exists a more effective remedy. |
| Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa | [(1983) 2 SCC 433] | Positive | Cited to reinforce the principle of preferring statutory redress mechanisms over suo motu interference. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ANIL KUMAR M.R. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
# **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945 W.P.(C) NO. 35799 OF 2022**
**PETITIONER:**
**ANIL KUMAR M.R. AGED 51 YEARS,**
**MURUTHOMPATHALIL HOUSE, MANDIRAM P.O.,**
**RANNI- 689 672.**
**BY ADVS.**
**R.KRISHNA RAJ E.S.SONI KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR RESMI A.**
**R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA)**
## **RESPONDENS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA**
- **GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695001.**
- **2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN -695001.**
- **3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**
- **4 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.**
2
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
- **5 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, 7Q7M+P5C, DOCTORS LANE , PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645.**
- **6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, 7Q7Q+V 49, IIND FLOOR, MIN CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645.**
- **7 THE CHIEF ENGINEER ( PUBLIC WORKS), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS VELLAYAMBALAM ROAD, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.**
- **8 THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKATTA BHAVAN, A-BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI110023.**
- **9 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.**
**R1 TO R3, R5 TO R8 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**R4 BY SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD**
**R9 BY ADV MANU S., DSG OF INDIA**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
3
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
## **JUDGMENT**
## P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioner is a devotee of Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala. He claims that he used to be involved in the matters connected to the welfare of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa. During his extensive travel, he noticed that many roads, culverts and bridges constructed enroute Sabarimala in Pathanamthitta District are damaged. On a close verification, he realised that construction of such roads, culverts and bridges was of substandard quality and not in accordance with the prescribed standards or guidelines. It is obvious that the authorities, who are responsible for the construction of those roads, culverts and bridges, either did not monitor the construction or indulged in unholy liaison with the contractors resulting in faulty construction. Therefore, he submitted a complaint before the Director of Vigilance pointing out such anomalies and irregularities. He wanted to investigate such irregularities during the last 15 years. Ext.P1 is a copy of the said complaint. He received a reply stating that allegations in
4
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
the complaint were baseless. He had obtained a copy of the report of the Police Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, who conducted enquiry in the matter, which is Ext.P5. The petitioner was convinced that the vigilance authorities, without conducting a proper enquiry or investigation, closed the matter. He has produced Exts.P13 to P46 and Exts.P47 to P58, which are copies of the newspaper reports and photographs of various parts of the roads alleged to be damaged soon after the construction in support of his allegations. He, on the basis of the said pleadings and allegations, seeks the following reliefs:-
“a. constitute a Special Investigation Team to conduct detailed enquiry into the nature and quality of the construction/reconstruction/improvements/maintenance
of the major roads which was constructed/ reconstructed/ improved/maintained in connection with the Sabarimala pilgrimage in the district of Pathanamthitta including the roads which are mentioned in this writ petition by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.
b. direct the Special Investigation Team to conduct an investigation to the nature and quality of work of the pilgrim shelter at Nilakkal, the construction of concrete
5
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
steps and other construction works at Pamba bathing ghat and the construction of the Annadana Mandapam at Sannidhanam by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.
c. direct the Union of India to produce details of utilisation of the funds provided by the Union of India under various schemes including Pradhan Manthri Sadak Yojana for various construction work related to Sabarimala pilgrimage by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.”
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.
3. In Ext.P1 the petitioner had espoused the grievances that the roads, culverts and bridges enroute Sabarimala were constructed totally in deviation from the approved estimates and using substandard materials. He asserted that most of the roads, culverts and bridges were damaged on account of such faulty construction and many of the roads got damaged soon after the construction/repair. In the Writ Petition, he alleged malpractices and irregularities in the construction of two pilgrim shelters at Nilakkal and also
6
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
bathing steps at Pamba River. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that although the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau did a preliminary enquiry into the allegations in Ext.P1, the findings arrived at by the Police Inspector, VACB, Pathanamthitta, who had conducted the enquiry, are totally incorrect and unacceptable. The recital in Ext.P5, the report of the Police inspector, VACB that it took 15 years to complete construction of Peroorchal Bridge across Pamba River and there were defects in its construction was highlighted and urged that a thorough investigation into the matter is absolutely essential.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the allegations in Ext.P1 and also the averments in the Writ Petition are too vague to have an investigation. When in the preliminary enquiry and verification by the Police Inspector concerned, it was found that the allegations are devoid of merits and no instance of corruption or irregularity requiring an investigation having been made out the request of the petitioner can only be declined. The learned Senior
7
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
Government Pleader further would submit that if the petitioner is in possession of any material probabilising corruption or commission of an offence, he should have produced before this Court and in that event the request for an investigation could have been considered favourably. It is his further submission that if the report in Ext.P5 is unacceptable, the remedy is to approach the Vigilance Court concerned and without resorting to that remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In **Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]** the Apex Court held that non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the
8
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In **Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85]** the Apex Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined exceptions as observed in **Chaabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]** , i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance
9
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. After referring to the law laid down in **Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes [AIR 1964 SC 1419]** and **Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433]** the Apex Court held that High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
7. Similarly, imponderability of ordering investigation based on Newspaper reports was considered by the Apex Court in **Holicow Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and others [(2007) 14 SCC 281].** It was held
10
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
thus,-
“20. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests;
(i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and
(ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. ×××"
8. Possibility of placing reliance on newspaper reports was considered by the Apex Court in **Laxmi Raj Shetty and another v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1988) 3 SCC 319]** . It was
held that a report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved.
11
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
9. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions,
a writ of mandamus directing investigation into an allegation of this nature cannot be ordered without there having materials to _prima facie_ substantiate the allegations. Only on the basis of certain photographs and Newspaper Reports, such an investigation cannot be ordered especially, when the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau already had a preliminary enquiry and came to the conclusion that there was no wrong requiring a vigilance verification and investigation into an offence.
10. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Writ Petition is liable only to be dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities to ventilate his grievance. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner. The factual and legal contentions raised by the parties are left open.
**Sd/-**
## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE**
**Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE**
dkr
12
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35799/2022**
## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE DATED 11.06.2019**
**EXHIBIT P2**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT DATED 24.05.2016**
- **EXHIBIT P3**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 19.07.2019 REPLY GIVEN BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT**
- **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT DATED 15.07.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE POLICE INSPECTOR VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 03.07.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 26.07.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 01.08.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT INFORMATION AND COST ESTIMATION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO ATTACHAKKAL - KUMBALAM POIKA ROAD DATED NIL**
- **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT ESTIMATE OF IMPROVEMENTS OF CHILAPPILLY ROAD DATED NIL**
- **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL**
13
W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
|**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE**|
|---|---|
||**TAHSILDAR DATED 27.08.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TALUK**|
||**VIKASANA SAMITHI DATED 03.08.219**|
|**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED NIL**|
|**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 15.06.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 31.10.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 25.09.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED NIL 02.10.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P18**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 20.10.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P19**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 02.10.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P20**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 03.10.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29.10.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P22**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 01.11.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P23**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 15.08.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P24**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 21.10.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P25**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 10.10.2019**|
14
## W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
|**EXHIBIT P26**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
|---|---|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 02.10.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P27**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 14.08.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P28**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN**|
||**MANORAMA DAILY DATED 20.09.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P29**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**|
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA ROAD IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P30**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**|
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA ROAD IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P31**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**|
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA ROAD IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P32**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**|
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA ROAD IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL.**|
|**EXHIBIT P33**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**|
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA ROAD IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**|
|**EXHIBIT P34**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**|
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA ROAD IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**|
|**EXHIBIT P35**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**|
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA' ROAD IN**|
15
## W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**||
|---|---|---|
|**EXHIBIT P36**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**||
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF **|**THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA' ROAD **|**IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**||
|**EXHIBIT P37**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**||
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF **|**THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA' ROAD **|**IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**||
|**EXHIBIT P38**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**||
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF **|**THE**|
||**ATTACHAKKAL-KUMBALAM POYKA' ROAD **|**IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**||
|**EXHIBIT P39**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**||
||**THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF **|**THE**|
||**CHUNGAPPARA -CHALAPPILLY ROAD **|**IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**||
|**EXHIBIT P40**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**||
||**THE**<br>**PATHETIC**<br>**SITUATION**|**OF**|
||**THECHUNGAPPARA-CHALAPPILLY ROAD' **|**IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**||
|**EXHIBIT P41**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**||
||**THE**<br>**PATHETIC**<br>**SITUATION**|**OF**|
||**THECHUNGAPPARA-CHALAPPILLY ROAD' **|**IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**||
|**EXHIBIT P42**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**||
||**THE**<br>**PATHETIC**<br>**SITUATION**|**OF**|
||**THECHUNGAPPARA-CHALAPPILLY ROAD' **|**IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**||
|**EXHIBIT P43**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING**||
||**THE**<br>**PATHETIC**<br>**SITUATION**|**OF**|
||**THECHUNGAPPARA-CHALAPPILLY ROAD' **|**IN**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**||
16
## W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
- **EXHIBIT P44 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THECHUNGAPPARA-CHALAPPILLY ROAD' IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**
- **EXHIBIT P45 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THECHUNGAPPARA-CHALAPPILLY ROAD' IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**
- **EXHIBIT P46 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PATHETIC SITUATION OF THECHUNGAPPARA-CHALAPPILLY ROAD' IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED NIL**
- **EXHIBIT P47 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DEVASWOM VIGILANCE DATED 24.08.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P48 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DEVASWOM VIGILANCE UNDER RTI ACT DATED NIL**
- **EXHIBIT P49 TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05.10.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P50 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, SHOWING THE DILAPIDATED SITUATION OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STEPS AT THE PAMBA BATHING GHAT DATED NIL**
- **EXHIBIT P51 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOWING THE DILAPIDATED SITUATION OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STEPS AT THE PAMBA BATHING GHAT DATED NIL**
- **EXHIBIT P52 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, SHOWING THE DILAPIDATED SITUATION OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STEPS AT THE PAMBA BATHING GHAT DATED NIL**
17
## W.P.(C) No.35799 of 2022
## **EXHIBIT P53**
**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, SHOWING THE DILAPIDATED SITUATION OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STEPS AT THE PAMBA BATHING GHAT DATED NIL**
**EXHIBIT P54**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, SHOWING THE DILAPIDATED SITUATION OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STEPS AT THE PAMBA BATHING GHAT DATED NIL**
**EXHIBIT P55**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, SHOWING THE DILAPIDATED SITUATION OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STEPS AT THE PAMBA BATHING GHAT DATED NIL**
**EXHIBIT P56**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, SHOWING THE DILAPIDATED SITUATION OF THE ANNADANA MANDAPAM DATED NIL**
- **EXHIBIT P57**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, SHOWING THE DILAPIDATED SITUATION OF THE ANNADANA MANDAPAM DATED NIL**
**EXHIBIT P58**
- **TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, SHOWING THE DILAPIDATED SITUATION OF THE ANNADANA MANDAPAM DATED NIL**