A.R. Arun Nair and others v. Government of India and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` W.P.(C)NO.16457OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 A.R.ARUN AGED 43 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR.G, ASHA BHAVAN, ERATHU VADAKKU, PATTAZHY.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691522`** - **`2 RENJITHA RATHEESH, AGED 34 YEARS W/O.R.RATHEESH CHANDRAN, KOLOOR VEEDU, KANNIMEL, PATTAZHY.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691522`** - **`3 PREETHA KUMARI, AGED 47 YEARS W/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR., RAHUL BHAVAN, THAZHATHU VADAKKU, PATTAZHY.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691522 BY ADVS. R.KRISHNA RAJ R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA) E.S.SONI KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVE SAFETY ORGANISATION, A7D WING, BLOCK 1- 8, 2ND FLOOR,SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110001`** - **`2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (DEVASWOM), KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691013`** - **`4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS (ROADS), KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691001`** ``` 2 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 - **`5 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, PIN - 691001`** - **`6 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695003`** - **`7 PATTAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PATTAZHI, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 691522`** - **`8 PATTAZHI KSHETRA UPADESHAKA SAMITHI ENATH-ARATTUPUZHA-PATTAZHI ROAD, PATTAZHI, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 691522`** - **`9 M/S NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED INFRA FUTURA BUILDING, 602,6TH FLOOR, OPP.BHARATHA, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM682021, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. [THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.05.2023 IN WP(C)]`** - **`10 MANJU RAHIM, AGED 41 YEARS W/O RAHIM CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VALACODE P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM – 691 331 NOW RESIDING AT MATHYOTTU HOUSE, ERATHUVADKKU, PATTAZHI, KOLLAM, PIN - 691522`** - **`11 RAHIM, AGED 42 YEARS CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VALACODE P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM – 691 331 NOW RESIDING AT MATHYOTTU HOUSE, ERATHUVADKKU, PATTAZHI, KOLLAM, PIN - 691522`** ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` MINI GOPINATH -CGC . SANTHOSH KUMAR G ``` ``` N.UNNIKRISHNAN AMAL PARTHASARADHY ANESH PAUL SREEJITH S ``` ``` SRI MANU S - DSGI ; SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; SRI G.SANTHOSH KUMAR - STANDING COUNSEL- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ; SRI NAVEEN T.- STANDING COUNSEL- KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ``` ``` 3 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 4 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners, who are devotees of Goddess Bhadrakali of Pattazhi Devi Temple, which is a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam to consider and dispose of Ext.P15 petition dated 05.04.2022 filed by them, invoking the provisions under Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The petitioners have also sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the 5[th] respondent Pollution Control Board to conduct a fresh hearing pursuant to the revocation notice dated 22.11.2021 and consider the existence of four other residential buildings in the prohibited distance of 30 mtrs. from the proposed petroleum retail outlet of the 10[th] respondent, as pointed out by them in Ext.P14 representation dated 06.12.2021; and an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining respondents 9 to 11 from establishing the petroleum retail outlet in the property comprised in Survey No.210/12 (Re.Sy.No.419/17) of Pattazhy Village. 2. On 29.05.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; ``` 5 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 “The petitioners along with one Subhash had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.24300 of 2021 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the approval dated 24.03.2021 granted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives, Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), Government of India to the proposed petrol retail outlet of M/s Nayara Energy Ltd. in the land proposed in Re-survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhi Village and for other consequential reliefs. That Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P13 judgment dated 23.03.2022, subject to imposition of costs of Rs.30,000/- on the 1[st] petitioner in that Writ Petition, i.e., Subhash R., S/o N.Ramachandran Nair, Kaithakunnathu Veedu, ErathuVadakku, Pattazhy P.O., Kollam. 2. This Writ Petition is filed against the very same petroleum retail outlet. The document marked as Ext.P15 is a petition dated 05.04.2022 submitted by the said Subhash along with the petitioners in this Writ petition, before the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam for cancellation of the no objection certificate granted for the proposed petroleum retail outlet. 3. The learned counsel for respondents 10 and 11 would submit that the said Subhash, the 1[st] petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24300 of 2021, has not chosen to pay the costs ordered by this Court in Ext.P13 judgment. The learned counsel would also point out that in addition to Ext.P15, the said Subhash is also a party in Ext.P14 representation dated 06.12.2021 made before the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, the 6[th] respondent, as also the applicant in Ext.P16 application made before the Public Information Officer of the Pollution Control Board dated 10.04.2023. ``` 6 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 4. On 26.05.2023, when this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 to correct the address of the 9[th] respondent. It appears that while paying process, the corrected copy of the Writ Petition with proper description of the 9[th] respondent was not provided. In the report of the Special Messenger, it is seen that notice on behalf of the 9[th] respondent M/s Nayara Energy Ltd. is also served on the 10[th] respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners shall take fresh notice to the 9[th] respondent by Special Messenger today itself. 6. The description of the 9[th] respondent is suo motu corrected as “M/s Nayara Energy Limited, Infra Futura Building, 602, 6[th] Floor, Opp. Bharatha, Kakkanad, Thrikkakara, Ernakulam -682 021, represented by its Authorised Officer.” 7. Issue notice to the 9[th] respondent by Special Messenger in the correct address. 8. Registry to get an explanation from the Special Messenger the circumstances under which notice issued to the 9[th] respondent M/s Nayara Energy Limited, Infra Futura Building, Kakkanad, represented by its Authorised Officer, has been served on the 10[th] respondent, who is presently residing at Pattazhi in Kollam. Registry shall also get an explanation from the concerned Section Officer in not ensuring that the complete address of the 9[th] respondent is shown in the process.” 3. The said order was followed by various orders. The cost of Rs.30,000/- imposed as per Ext.P13 judgment dated 23.03.2022 was paid in July, 2023. During the pendency of this ``` 7 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 writ petition, a devotee of Pattazhy Devi Temple made a complaint dated ‘Nil’ against the proposed petroleum retail outlet of respondents 9 to 11, which was directed to be incorporated in the Judges’ Papers of this writ petition, by the proceedings dated 04.10.2023, after serving a copy of the same on the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the party respondents. 4. The party respondents have filed a counter affidavit, which was followed by an additional counter affidavit, after the amendment of the writ petition, by the order dated 31.07.2023 in I.A No.3 of 2023. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Central Government Counsel, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and also the respective learned counsel for the party respondents. 6. The issue that requires consideration is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus, commanding the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, to consider and dispose of Ext.P15 petition dated 05.04.2022, which was one filed under ``` 8 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. 7. The issue relating to the establishment of a petroleum retail outlet by respondents 9 to 11 in the property comprised in Survey No.210/12 (Re.Sy.No.419/17) of Pattazhy Village was the subject matter in W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 filed before this Court by the petitioners herein, along with others. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P13 judgment dated 23.03.2022. In paragraph 54 of the said judgment, this Court made it clear that it is for the Travancore Devaswom Board or any person interested in Pattazhy Devi Temple to challenge the proceedings dated 29.10.2021 [Ext.R10(c)] of the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam before an appropriate Forum. The legal and factual contentions raised by both sides on the statutory violations were left open to be raised before the appropriate Forum, before which a challenge against the said proceedings is made. Paragraph 54 of Ext.P13 judgment reads thus; “54. Pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure R10(d) judgment, the representation filed by Prabha Kumari was disposed of vide Ext.R10(c) order dated 29.10.2021. A reading of Ext.R10(c) order would show that the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, rejected the aforesaid representation on the ground that the 9th respondent has already been granted Consent to Establish by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and that, at present ``` 9 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 permission is not being granted for conducting kambamvazhipadu in Pattazhy Devi Temple and that, the conduct of ponkala will not in any manner affect the establishment of a petroleum retail outlet in the property in question. The petitioners herein filed this writ petition before this Court on 03.11.2021. It is not discernible from the pleadings and materials on record as to whether a copy of Ext.R10(c) order dated 29.10.2021 was communicated to the petitioners herein before 03.11.2021. When one of the objections raised before the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam against the establishment of petroleum retail outlet in the property in question by respondents 9 to 11 was that it will adversely affect the performance of an important ritual of Pattazhy Devi Temple, namely, Pattazhy Kambam (fireworks), the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board and also the concerned Sub Group Officer/Administrative Officer in charge of Pattazhy Devi Temple ought to have be made a party to that proceedings. At any rate, in view of the specific direction contained in Ext.R10(d) judgment to consider the representation with notice to all affected parties, the Additional District Magistrate ought not to have passed orders on that representation without notice to the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is for the Travancore Devaswom Board or any person interested in Pattazhy Devi Temple to challenge Ext.R10(c) proceedings of the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam dated 29.10.2021 before the appropriate forum. Therefore, the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides on the statutory violations are left open to be raised before the appropriate forum, before which a challenge against Ext.R10(c) proceedings is made.” ``` 10 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 8. During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Ext.P15 petition filed before the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam is one filed in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 54 of Ext.P13 judgment, invoking the provisions under Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules. 9. As already noticed hereinbefore, the direction contained in paragraph 54 of Ext.P13 judgment is one giving liberty to the Travancore Devaswom Board or any person interested in Pattazhy Devi Temple to challenge proceedings dated 29.10.2021 [Ext.R10(c)] of the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam before the appropriate Forum. However, Ext.P15 petition filed by the petitioner, invoking the provisions under Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules, is one for cancellation of the No Objection Certificate. 10. Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules which deals with the cancellation of a No Objection Certificate, reads thus; “150. Cancellation of no-objection certificate.- (1) A no-objection certificate granted under rule 144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government, if the District Authority or the State Government is satisfied, that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum Provided that before cancelling a no-objection certificate, ``` 11 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) A District Authority or a State Government cancelling a no-objection certificate shall record, in writing, the reasons for such cancellation and shall immediately furnish to the licensee and to the licensing authority concerned, copy of the order cancelling the no-objection certificate.” (underline supplied) 11. In view of the provisions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 150, a No Objection Certificate granted under Rule 144 is liable to be cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government, if the District Authority or the State Government is satisfied, that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petroleum. Therefore, the power of cancellation cannot be exercised for the reasons stated in Ext.P15 petition made by the petitioners, which is beyond the scope of Rule 150. 12. In **Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145]** a ThreeJudge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and ``` 12 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. 13. In **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]** the Apex Court held that, under the Constitution, a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of the law or to do something which is contrary to the law. 14. In **Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain** **[(2008) 2 SCC 280]** the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial ``` 13 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. 15. In **Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]** the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has the competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 16. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, no mandamus can be issued directing the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam to consider Ext.P15 petition made by the petitioners, since the power of cancellation of the no-objection certificate cannot be exercised for the reasons stated in Ext.P15 petition made by the petitioners, which is beyond the scope of Rule 150 of the Petroleum Rules. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, before whom Ext.P15 petition is filed, is not made a party to this writ petition. ``` 14 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 17. We notice that, despite the liberty granted in paragraph 54 of Ext.P13 judgment, the Travancore Devaswom Board has not chosen to challenge the proceedings dated 29.10.2021 of the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam [Ext.R10(c)] before the appropriate forum. The counter affidavit dated 23.09.2023 filed on behalf of the Board is silent on the above aspect. 18. Another relief sought for in this writ petition is with reference to Ext.P14 application made by the petitioners, which is the one submitted before the 5[th] respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board. On a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Pollution Control Board would submit that the proceedings in the notice issued by the concerned Environmental Engineer for revocation of consent is pending consideration, which is yet to be finalised. 19. On the above aspect, the learned counsel for the 10[th] respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board would point out the judgment of the Apex Court in **Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. V.B.R Menon [(2023) SCC Online SC 257]** . 20. Since proceedings in the notice issued by the concerned Environmental Engineer for revocation of consent are pending consideration before the concerned Environmental ``` 15 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 Engineer of the 5[th] respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board, it is for the said authority to take an appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law, taking note of the law on the point, with notice to both sides, without any further delay. 21. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of, after deprecating in the strongest words the conduct of the petitioners in approaching this Court without paying the costs in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P13 judgment dated 23.03.2022 in W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021, which was paid during the pendency of this writ petition, in July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** vgd ``` 16 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16457/2023`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P-1TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER DATED NIL EXHIBIT P-2TRUE COPY OF BTR DATED 13.10.2021 EXHIBIT P-3TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE PETROLEUM MINISTRY DATED 24.03.2021 EXHIBIT P-4TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER DATED 27.07.2021 EXHIBIT P-5TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 19.03.2021 EXHIBIT P-6TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 18.08.2020 EXHIBIT P-7TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED 16.07.2021 EXHIBIT P-8TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY THE FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT DATED 03.02.2021 EXHIBIT P-9TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE WORSHIPPERS DATED NIL EXHIBIT P-10TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 07.09.2021 EXHIBIT P-11TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED 31.03.2014 EXHIBIT P-12TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAZHY DEVASWOM LANDS (VESTING AND ENFRANCHISEMENT) ACT 1961 DATED NIL EXHIBIT P-13TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.C.24300/2021 DATED 23.03.2022 EXHIBIT P-14TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 06.12.2021 EXHIBIT P-15TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE UNDER RULE 150 OF THE KERALA PETROLEUM RULES 2002 DATED 05.04.2022 EXHIBIT P-16TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SUBHASH UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 10.04.2023 ``` ``` 17 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 ``` EXHIBIT P-17TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 28.04.2023 EXHIBIT P-18TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 30.04.2022 EXHIBIT P-19TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DATED 22.02.2023 WITH READABLE COPY EXHIBIT P-20TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER SEEKING LEGAL OPINION DATED 08.06.2022 EXHIBIT P-21TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION GIVEN BY THE STANDING COUNSEL DATED 24.06.2022 EXHIBIT P-22TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO SUBHASH UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 29.03.2023 EXHIBIT P-23TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.02.2023 OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT EXHIBIT P-24TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SUBHASH UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 10.04.2023 EXHIBIT P-25TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PATTAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 25.04.2023 EXHIBIT P-26TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 17.08.2022 EXHIBIT P-27TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN WP (C) NO.649/2018 DATED 05.07.2018 EXHIBIT P-28 A TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 07.05.2023 IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P-2 EXHIBIT P-29 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 27.05.2023 RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT R11(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 741/2015 DATED 15.06.2015 OF SRO PATTAZHY EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NOS 10 AND 11. ``` ``` 18 ``` W.P(C)No.16457 of 2023 ``` EXHIBIT R11(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND DEMARCATION REGISTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PATTAZHY, DATED NIL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R11(C)A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED 19.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R11(D)A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 16.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT R11(E)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 5LH RESPONDENT BOARD. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R11(F)A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 03.02.2023 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT ``` - **`EXHIBIT R11(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KOLLAM`** ``` EXHIBIT R11(H). TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 22.11.2021 FILED BY THE ADV. JAI GEORGE IN WPC NO 24300 OF 2021 BEFORE THIS COURT ``` ``` EXHIBIT-R9(A)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AUTHORITY GIVEN BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAYARA ENERGY, DATED 05.04.2023. ``` ``` EXHIBIT-R6(A)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/10/2021 GIVEN BY TANTRI SRI.THAZHAMON MADOM KANTARU RAJEEVARU TO THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, KOTTARAKARA. ```