C. Achuthankutty and Surendran P v Malabar Devaswom Board and others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO.37973 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 C. ACHUTHANKUTTY AGED 73 YEARS`** - **`S/O ACHUTHAN NAIR, ACHUTHAM, THOTTAKARA (P.O), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679101`** ``` 2SURENDRAN. P AGED 58 YEARS ``` ``` S/O APPUKUTTY EZHUTHACHAN, PACHIREEKKATTIL HOUSE, THOTTAKARA (P.O), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 679101 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM (P.O), KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006`** - **`2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSE FED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM (P.O), KOZHIKODE., PIN – 673006`** ``` 3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASOM BOARD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD., PIN – 678001 ``` - **`4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE CHINAKKATHOOR BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, PALAPPURAM`** 2 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 ``` (P.O), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 679103 ``` ``` 5K. KARUNAKARAN S/O C.S. NAIR, JAYA VIHAR, THOTTAKARA (P.O), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 679101 ``` - **`6 K. SIVADASAN`** ``` KATTANAKALAM, HOUSE, THOTTAKARA (P.O), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 679101 ``` - **`7 T.P. PRADEEP KUMAR`** ``` S/O KUTTAPPA, THEKHEPURAKKAL HOUSE, THOTTAKARA (P.O), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 679101 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SANTHEEP ANKARATH – FOR R5 TO R7 P.ANIRUDHAN(K/002306/2021) – FOR R5 TO R7 ``` ``` SRI R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN - STANDING COUNSEL - MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners, who are devotees of Chinakkathoor Bhagavathy Temple in Ottappalam Desom, which is a controlled institution under the 1[st] respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Commissioner, Palakkad, not to grant approval to Chinakkathoor Pooram Ottappalam Desom Pooraghosha Committee, headed by the 5[th] respondent, since the formation of that Committee is made in violation of the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in **Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala [ILR 2022 (4) Kerala 199]** . The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus, commanding the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Commissioner, to pass appropriate orders on the plea of granting approval to Chinakkathoor Pooram Ottappalam Desom Pooraghosha Committee, headed by the 5[th] respondent, in terms of the decision of this Court in **Chathu Achan [ILR 2022 (4) Kerala 199]** . 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners who are residents of Ottapalam Desom are the devotees of Chinakkathoor Bhagavathy. The annual temple 4 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 festival - Chinakkathoor Pooram is celebrated in the month of February or in the first week of March. In connection with the annual festival, every desom used to have an individual Pooram Committee and their representatives will get elected into the Central Committee, which conducts Chinakkathoor Pooram. The desom Committees are formed from the residents of that desom, to co-ordinate and lead individual desom Pooram, which ultimately, culminate in the temple. There used to be Chinakkathoor Pooram Ottappalam Desom Committee, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act for the conduct of Ottappalam Desom Pooraghosham. Since that Committee became defunct, owing to certain disputes resulting in legal proceedings before various forums, the Ottapalam Desom Pooraghosha Committee is being elected every year, in terms of the circular issued by the 1[st] respondent, as H.R.H.5/8246/06 dated 15.06.2007. That apart, respondents 1 to 3 have taken a stand that the Committee formed under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act cannot be allowed to conduct Pooraghosham. Since there were irregularities in the conduct of election to Ottappalam Desom Pooraghosham Committee, in the previous year, the petitioners have approached the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board with Ext.P5 5 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 representation dated 05.04.2023, seeking interference for the proper conduct of election for formation of Chinakkathoor Pooram Ottappalam Desom Pooraghosha Committee, for the year 2024 and thereafter approached this Court in this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. The grievance of the petitioners is that persons who are active politicians are included in Chinakkathoor Pooram Ottappalam Desom Pooraghosha Committee. 3. On 16.11.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 7, returnable by 20.11.2023. 4. On 20.11.2023, respondents 5 to 7 entered appearance through counsel and sought time to file counter affidavit. Respondents 5 to 7 have filed a counter affidavit dated 18.12.2023. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus; “3. The writ petition is not maintainable. Chinakathur Pooram Ottapalam Desha Committee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The writ petition in this nature is not maintainable against election to the society. The election to the society is supervised by Malabar Devaswom Board only on account of the fact that there is a dispute concerning the management of the society. The same will not take away the nature of existence of the 6 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 committee. 4. At the outset, it is submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. Petitioners have not even bothered to participate in the election or even the meeting. They are not even aware as to what had transpired during the meeting. They are not contesting parties to the election and hence the writ petition in this nature cannot be filed at the instance of the writ petitioners. 5. The main contention in the writ petition is based on the dictum laid down in the decision reported in **Chathu Achan** **K.V. v. State of Kerala [ILR 2022 (4) Kerala 199]** . The same has no application in the instant case. The said reported judgment is concerning involvement of office bearers of political parties, active politicians or those indulging in active participation in the activities of political party to aspire for appointment as non hereditary trustee of a temple. The dispute in question is not concerning the post of non- hereditary trustee or a vacancy of a long term nature to the management of a temple. The election is conducted only to elect President, Secretary and nominee to the Central Committee for the temple festival of each year and it is admitted that after the festival of each year the committee will be dispersed. It is also to be stated at this juncture that there are six other desha committees bringing their festive activities to the temple during each year's festivals. Such desha committee conduct their own election and almost 100% of the elected persons of such committees have active political affiliation. Simply because, on account of the internal management dispute of Ottapalam Desha committee, Malabar Devaswom Board is 7 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 directed to supervise the election, it does not give a different status to Ottapalam Desha committee as differentiable from other committees. 6. On this deponent's enquiries, it is revealed that even the writ petitioners have political affiliations and they are active participants of Karshaka Sangam under ruling political party. 7. It is to be stated that the writ petition, apart from alleging that these respondents having political affiliation, does not make any specific allegation concerning the conduct of election for this year. Almost all the questions concerning conduct of election is concluded by judgments in earlier writ petitions of identical nature” 5. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated ## 21.01.2024. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that reply affidavit read thus; “3. It is respectfully submitted that the admission made instance of the respondents 5 to 7, to the effect that Chinakhathoor Pooram Ottapalam desom Committee is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, by itself would go to show that the committee represented by the respondents 5 to 7, is an illegal committee, functioning against Ext-P2 & P3 Circular, issued by the 2[nd] respondent. This is essentially because in Ext-P2, the 2[nd] respondent, made it very clear that public committee for conduct of pooram or other purposes shall be constituted and function only in accordance with the Ext-P3 Circular. Therefore the committee represented by respondents 5 to 7 has no locus to function and hence no approval could be granted to the committee at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent. 4. At the outset it is respectfully submitted that petitioners 8 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 are aggrieved by the presence of active politicians, which is not disputed in the counter affidavit filed, in the Chinakhathoor Pooram Ottapalam Desom Committee, in violation of the spirit of the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court, under similar circumstances. In fact in Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee Vs State of Kerala (2022(2) KHC 290), this Hon'ble Court, pleased to observe that politics has no role to play in the conduct of daily worship and ceremonies and festivals in Temple. 5. It is respectfully submitted the contentions that even the Writ petitioners have political affiliations and they are active participants of Karshaka Sangam under ruling party is nothing but wrong understanding of the issue raised in the Writ Petition. It is respectfully submitted that the Writ Petitioners are not active politicians, occupying important positions of any political party and therefore no disqualification could be attributed to them even if they occupy any post in the Committee.” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would submit that the Chinakkathoor Pooram is scheduled to be held on 25.02.2024. The rituals in connection with Chinakkathoor Pooram, which are 9 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 conducted in Chinakkathoor Bhagavathy Temple, has already commenced on 28.01.2024. 8. The submission made by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 is that the Desom Pooraghosha Committees or the Central Committee, which consist of the representatives of each Desom Pooraghosha Committee have absolutely no role in the activities in Chinakkathoor Bhagavathy Temple, in connection with Chinakkathoor Pooram. 9. Section 14 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, deals with Temple Advisory Committee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 14, for the purpose of ensuring the adequate participation of Hindu devotees, a committee may be constituted for each temple in the name "(name of the temple) Temple Advisory Committee", not inconsistent with the existing custom and practices. As per subsection (2) of Section 14, the Temple Advisory Committees formed under sub-section (1) shall be approved by the Board. As per subsection (2) of Section 14, the composition of a Temple Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed. 10. In **Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Kshethrodharana Samithi and another v. Malabar** 10 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 ## **Devaswom Board and other [2013 (3) KHC 849]** a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the challenge made against Section 14 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 as substituted by Amending Act 31 of 2008, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Rules, 2009 inserting 'the Rules under Section 14(3)' and Circular No. HRJ 1-5144/2009 dated 03.08.2009 issued by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. This Court held that the object sought to be achieved by the constitution of Temple Advisory Committees provided in the opening part of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act is for ensuring the adequate participation of Hindu devotees. While sub- section (1) of Section 14 provides for the participation of Hindu devotees, Rule 2 provides for nomination from among locally residing Hindu persons having interest in the affairs of the temple. The impugned Section 14 and the impugned Rules are so made that they insulate the maintenance of existing customs and practices of each temple. The constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee shall not be inconsistent with the existing customs and practices. This is the dictate of sub-section (1) of Section 14. 10.1. The Division Bench noticed that the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules, including 11 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 the impugned amendments to the Act and Rules, are made in such a manner that the administration of the institution by the hereditary trustee or the trustees is never intended to be impaired, except in cases where it becomes necessary to remove the hereditary trustee or the trustees or appoint non-hereditary trustees or to frame a scheme for the purpose of the temple in question. Insofar as involvement in a Temple Advisory Committee under the impugned Rules and Section 14 of the Act is concerned, one has to be not merely a Hindu but a Hindu person having interest in the affairs of the temple, thereby meaning that such person should be one who would fall within the definition of the term 'person having interest' in Section 6(11)(b) of the Act. This means that only a person, who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat, can be included as a member of a Temple Advisory Committee. The scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder not only insulates the authority of the hereditary trustee or the trustees to preserve and have matters of religion in a temple in terms of such customs, practices and usages, it gives no room for any authority to interfere with that. The statutory prescription to visit and remove 12 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 or modify the office of a trustee is itself circumscribed to the effect that such exercise could be only to ensure the management in terms of the customs and practices. It is not to obviate or to be in derogation thereof. Such being the statutory situs and setting of the impugned Section 14 of the Act and the impugned Rules, the Division Bench found no ground to hold that those provisions are unconstitutional. Equally, on the face of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and the general rule-making power, as contained in Section 100 of the Act, the Division Bench repelled the challenge to the impugned Rules that it is in excess of the rule-making power under the Act. 10.2. The Division Bench noticed that unlike the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and the manner of management of the different temples falling under the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board; insofar as the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is concerned, many of the temples are autonomous bodies administered in terms of the schemes framed either by the Deputy Commissioner or earlier by the District Court and the control of the Malabar Devaswom Board over such institutions in terms of the provisions of the Madras Act is only supervisory. Even in relation to temples where a scheme is not framed, but the 13 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 ## establishment continues to be under the control of a hereditary trustee or trustees, the legal status of that institution does not become anything different. With this in view, the Division Bench considered the plea that the terms of the circular are in excess of the authority and sweep of Section 14 of the Act and the impugned Rules and it has been issued beyond the authority of the Commissioner. 10.3. The Division Bench noticed that Section 8B of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which empowers the Malabar Devaswom Board to assume the direct management of any religious institution provided the trustees request the Board to take over its management unconditionally. Except in cases where direct administration is so assumed, the statutory authority under the Madras Act would remain regulatory and supervisory to the entire extent as provided by the different provisions of that Act. Reverting to the impugned circular, the Division Bench found that the provisions thereof, if operated, would be a parallel administrative mechanism whereby the matters relating to different aspects of the temple, including festivals, etc., would essentially be under the control of such Temple Advisory Committees. Recalling sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, it is clear that the Statute never contemplated any 14 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 such authority with the Temple Advisory Committees. The provision was only intended to ensure adequate participation of Hindu devotees, not inconsistent with the existing customs and practices. The purpose of the participation of Hindu devotees as envisioned in sub-section (1) of Section 14 cannot be to create a managerial institution or a committee which will meddle with the affairs relating to the administration of the temple or any matter related thereto. Matters relating to customs, usages and practices include matters relating to festivals and organizing different functions in connection with the rituals of the temple. Those are not matters which can be meddled with by the Temple Advisory Committees. The administration of the temple is clearly with the hereditary trustee or the trustees, as the case may be, except in cases of institutions which fall under Section 8B of the Act and of course those temples in relation to which the non-hereditary trustees or fit persons have been appointed. Going by sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, read with Rule 2 of the impugned Rules, the Temple Advisory Committees would merely be a committee of persons having interest in the affairs of a temple, to ensure the adequate participation of Hindu devotees. Nothing beyond. 15 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 Commissioner to issue circulars include the power to issue any circular of the nature of the one impugned, the Division Bench noticed that the impugned circular does not quote any statutory authority. It merely refers to decision No.3 taken by the Board on 09.07.2009. Section 14 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act provides for Temple Advisory Committees and enjoins that the composition of a Temple Advisory Committee shall be in such manner as may be prescribed. The impugned Rules prescribe for nominations by the Malabar Devaswom Board. Such nominations are for members at clauses (c) to (e) of Rule 1 of the impugned Rules. While the power to prescribe the composition of a Temple Advisory Committee is left by the Act to be in terms of what may be prescribed, that Statute does not provide subordinate legislative power or regulatory executive authority to enumerate the powers, duties and functions of Temple Advisory Committees. The nature of duties and responsibilities fixed on the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer under the impugned circular essentially give them the authority to take donations from the public, issue receipts, maintain bank accounts and get involved in different other aspects which are predominantly matters relating to the management of 16 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 any establishment, whether it is religious or not. No such authority is seen available to a Temple Advisory Committee in terms of Section 14 of the Act or the impugned Rules. The insulation of the temple, its customs, usages, office of hereditary trustee or trustees from interference by the Temple Advisory Committees is one of the grounds on which the validity of Section 14 and the impugned Rules have been upheld hereinabove. The provisions in the impugned circular essentially run to the contrary; by enabling the Temple Advisory Committees to make recommendations to the temple authorities in matters relating to temple festivals, renovations, naveekaranakalasam and other special chatangukal (ritualistic functions) which have to be held from time to time. What has been done by the impugned circular is essentially to take away what stands protected in terms of the different statutory provisions as regards the office of the hereditary trustee or the trustees and their eligibility to regulate the customs, usages and practices and rituals in the temples. Therefore, the impugned circular invades the right of the hereditary trustee or the trustees to manage and administer a temple unless found in statutory proceedings to be liable to be removed from such office. The Division Bench noticed that the manner in which nominations are to be made to the Temple Advisory Committees in terms of the 17 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 impugned circular also tends to indicate that the criticism levelled by the petitioners, that the attempt is to infuse persons of the political choice of those in power, comments acceptance. The impugned circular goes beyond the limits of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and the impugned Rules, as noted above. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench held that the impugned circular is ultra vires the Act and the impugned Rules, therefore, arbitrary and liable to be declared as void and inoperative. The Division Bench allowed the writ petitions in part, quashing the impugned circular dated 03.08.2009 issued by the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board. 11. After the decision of the Division Bench in **Payyannur** ## **Sree Subrahmanya Swami Kshethrodharana Samithi [2013** **(3) KHC 849]** quashing the impugned circular dated 03.08.2009, the formation of committees consisting of the devotees in temples which are controlled institutions of Malabar Devaswom Board, for the specific purpose of conducting festivals or renovation works are governed by the provisions contained in Circular No. HRH5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007 issued by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions (Administration) Department. Clause (1) of the said circular reads thus; 18 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 1) ്ഷേത്ര്ങളിൽ ഉ്഼വാ്ഷ ാഷ്ങൾ, നവീകരണ ത്രവർ്ᩈന്ങൾ എ്ᩐിവ ന്ᩤരീരിയിൽ നട്ᩈു്ᩐരിനായി ആവശ്യമെ്ഝിൽ ഭ്ജന്മള ഉൾമെടു്ിമകാ്ᩂ് ക്്ി രൂരീകരികാവു്രാണ `.` ഇ്ങമന രൂരീകരികു്ᩐ ക്ᩜ്റികൾ ്ഷേത്ര്ᩈിൽ യാമരാരു കാരണവശ്ാലുും ്ᩝിരൊയി ത്രവർ്ᩈികാൻ രാടു്ᩦര്ᩤ `.` ഒരു വർഷ്ഷ്ᩈ്ഷകാ അമ്ᩤ്ഝിൽ ഉ്ഷേശ്യലേയ്ങൾ രൂർ്ᩈീകരി്ചരിനു്ഷശ്ഷ്ഷൊ അമ്ᩤ്ഝിൽ ക്ᩜ്റിയുമട ത്രവർ്ᩈനും അവസാനിെികു്ᩐരിന് വകുെ് ക്ᩜീഷണർ ഉ്ᩈരവ് രുറമെടുവികുക്ഷയാ മെ്യു്ᩐരുവമര ഇരിൽ ഏരാണ് ആദ്യും വരിക, അര് കഴി്ᨼാൽ ക്ᩜ്റി രിരി്ചുവി്ഷട്ᩂരാണ് `.”` (underline supplied) 12. As held by the Division Bench in **Payyannur Sree** ## **Subrahmanya Swami Kshethrodharana Samithi [2013 (3)** **KHC 849]** the scheme of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules framed thereunder not only insulates the authority of the hereditary trustee or the trustees to preserve and have matters of religion in a temple in terms of such customs, practices and usages, it gives no room for any authority to interfere with that. Matters relating to customs, usages and practices include matters relating to festivals and organising different functions in connection with the rituals of the temple. Those are not matters which can be meddled with even by a committee consisting of the devotees, constituted under the provisions contained in Circular No. HRH5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007, for the specific purpose of conducting temple festivals. The administration of the temple is clearly with the 19 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 ## hereditary trustee or the trustees, as the case may be, except in cases of institutions which fall under Section 8B of the Act and of course those temples in relation to which the non-hereditary trustees or fit persons have been appointed. 13. In **Hindu Seva Kendram v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (3) KHC 258]** , a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] held that a committee like Pooram-2023 Sanghadaka Samithi constituted for conducting Pooram in Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi Temple, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, cannot meddle with matters relating to festivals and organising different functions in connection with the rituals of the temple. In the absence of a committee consisting of the devotees, constituted under the provisions contained in Circular No.HRH5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007 issued by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions (Administration) Department, the entire activities in connection with the Pooram festival of 2023 in Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi Temple shall be conducted by the temple administration and Pooram-2023 Sanghadaka Samithi cannot meddle with any such matters. 14. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the entire activities in Chinakkathoor Bhagavathi Temple in 20 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 connection with Chinakkathoor Pooram have to be conducted by the temple administration along with any committee consisting of devotees formed for the purpose of conducting that festival in terms of Circular No.H5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007 issued by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions (Administration) Department. The Desom Pooraghosha Committees or the Central Committee, which consists of the members of the Desom Committees, cannot meddle with any such matters. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** vgd 21 W.P(C)No.37973 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37973/2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT - P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN W.P(C).NO. 39624/2015, DATED 06.01.16. ``` ``` EXHIBIT -P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, AS ORDER NO.J3.40/2016/MDB DATED 21.01.16. ``` ``` EXHIBIT -P3TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR WITH NO. H.R.H 5/8246/06, ISSUED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 15.06.07. ``` ``` EXHIBIT -P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN W.P©. NO. 36586/2022 , DATED 11.01.23. EXHIBIT -P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED, 05.04.23. EXHIBIT -P6TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT , PUBLISHED IN MANORAMA DAILY NEWS PAPER, INTIMATING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE ABOUT THE FORMATION OF CHI- NAKHATHOOR POORAM OTTAPALAM DESOM POORAGHOSHACOMMITTEE, FOR THE YEAR 2024, DATED 29.09.23. EXHIBIT -P7TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY, WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE 7TH RESPONDENT, IS THE BRANCH SEC- RETARY OF C.P.M, DATED 05.10.23. ``` ``` EXHIBIT - P8TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY, WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE 7TH RESPONDENT, IS THE BRANCH SEC- RETARY OF C.P.M, POOLAK- KAPARAMBU, DATED 05.10.23. EXHIBIT - P9TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY, WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE 6TH RESPONDENT, IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF STATE COMMITTEE OF B.J.P, DATED 27.02.23. ```