Fathimabi Memorial Trust v. Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.13335 OF 2019(N)** ## **PETITIONER:** **FATHIMABI MEMORIAL TRUST,REG.NO.298/4/12, KP 2/26, CHALIYAM P.O, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI.E.M. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. IMICHIBAVA, AGED 52, RESIDING AT BARKATH VATTAPARAMBA, CHALIYAM P.O, KOZHIKODE-673301.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.A.S.DHEERAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 1ST FLOOR, KSRTC, BUS TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** **2 THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 1ST FLOOR, KSRTC, BUS TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** - **3 THE SECRETARY,KADALUNDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADALUNDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673301.** **ADDL. R4 FAIZAL, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. MADATHIL ABDUL KHADAR,RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETIL HOUSE, KADALUNDI DESOM, PAZHANJANOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE-PIN-673 301 IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 27-52019 IN I.ANO.1/2019** **R1-2 BY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, SC, KCZMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.KHALID R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA R3 BY ADV. SMT.JASILA BEEVI V.K. R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is stated to be the Trustee of Fathimabi Memorial Trust with registration No.298/4/2012, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 communication dated 15.11.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent, who is the Member Secretary of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to consider Ext.P2 application dated 17.09.2018 for regularisation of the construction already made by the petitioner in its property having an extent of 45 cents in Re-survey No.6/1, 2 of Kadalundi Village. 2. On 07.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission before the Vacation Bench, the same was ordered to be listed after summer vacation. 3. On 23.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following order; “A reading of Ext.P3 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition, would show that it was based on a complaint made by Sri.P.B.I.Faisal that proceedings W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 3 have been initiated for demolition of the building in question, on the ground that there is violation of the CRZ norms. 2. The learned counsel for the Coastal Zone Management Authority would point out that the said complainant is not made a party to this writ petition. 3. In _**Prabodh Verma v. State U.P. [(1984) 4 SCC 251]**_ , a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them before it as respondents in a representative capacity, if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. The petitioner to file an application to implead the complainant referred to in Ext.P3, who has also filed O.S.No.854 of 2018 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode, in which an order of injunction has also been granted against the 3[rd] respondent Grama Panchayat.” 4. On 27.05.2019, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2019, seeking an order to implead the complainant in Ext.P3 order as additional 4[th] respondent. By the order W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 4 dated 27.05.2019, the said interlocutory application was allowed and the Registry was directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title. On 29.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2 and sought time to file counter affidavit. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to the 3[rd] respondent and also to the additional 4[th] respondent. 5. On 21.06.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order of demolition issued by the 3[rd] respondent Grama Panchayat. Such submission was made without disclosing the fact that, despite the order of this Court dated 29.05.2019, the petitioner has not paid process to serve notice on the 3[rd] respondent and also to the additional 4[th] respondent. On 21.06.2019, this Court passed the following order; “The petitioner, which is stated to be a trust with registration No.298/4/2012, represented by its W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 5 Managing Trustee, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 15.11.2018 issued by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application dated 17.09.2018, which is an application filed for regularisation of the construction of certain buildings. Ext.P3 order reads thus; “I am to invite your attention to the references cited. The District Town Planner and Member Secretary, District Level committee, KCZMA, Kozhikode has conducted site inspection on the complaint of Sri.P B I Faizal regarding the illegal construction of Befathima Beevi Trust (Building No.K.P 2/270 B, 2/270 C) and reported (vide letter at reference 1[st] cited) that the stand alleged in the complaint is under the ownership of Befathima Beevi Trust. The District Town Planner reported that the three buildings were constructed without obtaining CRZ Clearance from KCZMA. Out of the above buildings, one building is under construction and illegally they digged a borewell also. The KCZMA discussed the report submitted by the Member Secretary, District Level Committee, KCZMA, Kozhikode in its 98[th] meeting vide agenda no.98.03.04 and decided to direct the Kadalundi Grama Panchayat Secretary to demolish the illegal construction (Building No.K.P 2/270 B, 2/270 C), in the circumstances, KCZMA hereby direct you to W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 6 take necessary action to demolish the building and to furnish a report in this regard to the KCZMA at the earliest.” 2. On 07.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, it was posted after summer vacation for consideration. 3. On 23.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “A reading of Ext.P3 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition, would show that it was based on a complaint made by Sri.P.B.I.Faisal that proceedings have been initiated for demolition of the building in question, on the ground that there is violation of the CRZ norms. 2. The learned counsel for the Coastal Zone Management Authority would point out that the said complainant is not made a party to this writ petition. 3. _In_ _**Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. [(1984) 4 SCC 251]**_ , a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them before it as respondents in a representative capacity, if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. The petitioner to file an application to implead W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 7 the complainant referred to in Ext.P3, who has also filed O.S.No.854 of 2018 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode, in which an order of injunction has also been granted against the 3[rd] respondent Grama Panchayat.” 4. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking an order to implead the complainant before the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. The said application was allowed by the order dated 27.05.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019. 5. On 29.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to the 3[rd] respondent and also to the additional 4[th] respondent, returnable within three weeks. The learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority was directed to file counter affidavit within three weeks. 6. Today, when this case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the demolition order issued by the 3[rd] respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayath. Such a submission was made, without disclosing the fact that, despite the order of this Court dated 29.05.2019, the petitioner has not chosen to pay process to serve notice on the 3[rd] respondent and also to the additional 4[th] respondent (who is the complainant before the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority).” W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 8 6. On 24.06.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner shall take out notice to the 3[rd] respondent and also to the additional 4[th] respondent by special messenger. Accordingly, notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the said respondents, returnable by 01.07.2019. 7. On 01.07.2019, the matter was adjourned to 10.07.2019, as requested by the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned counsel for the additional 4[th] respondent. On 10.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was reported by Adv.Nemom Chandra Babu that he has relinquished vakalath for the petitioner. Shri.E.M. Abdul Azeez, who appeared in-person, submitted that he is the Trustee of the petitioner Trust and he requires some time to engage another counsel. 8. On 16.07.2019, the 3[rd] respondent has filed a counter affidavit. On 22.07.2019, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.2 of 2019, seeking permission to withdraw this writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 9 incorporating necessary corrections and producing the documents omitted to be produced along with this writ petition. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2019 read thus; “2. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Trust espousing the cause of fishermen community for whom an ice plant is to be set up in a land belonging to the petitioner. Unfortunately, some factual errors had crept in when the writ petition was filed and due to unforeseen circumstances, some relevant documents were omitted to be produced and marked in the writ petition. The petitioner can present the above writ petition in a proper manner only if these documents are brought on record and the factual errors which had crept in are corrected. 3. Hence it is respectfully prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to permit me to withdraw the above writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition incorporating the necessary corrections and producing the documents omitted to be produced herein, in the interest of justice.” (underline supplied) 9. On 07.08.2019, the additional 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 10 in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit it is pointed out that, the said respondent is holding property on the northern side of the property owned by the petitioner Trust. When there was obstruction by the members of the petitioner Trust on the construction of a compound wall on the southern side of the property of the additional 4[th] respondent, he filed O.S.No.675 of 2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode for declaration and injunction. He has also filed O.S.No.854 of 2018 against the petitioner and the Grama Panchayat for injunction. In the said suit, I.A.No.5024 of 2018 was filed for temporary injunction restraining the Grama Panchayat from granting permission to the petitioner Trust for starting ice plant in the buildings illegally constructed. On 10.12.2018, when the Advocate Commissioner visited the site, he was physically prevented by the members of the petitioner Trust and their men. The Advocate Commissioner reported the said fact by submitting Ext.R4(a) report dated 13.12.2018. On 01.02.2019, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the site with police assistance. The report of the Advocate W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 11 Commissioner is awaited. On 12.04.2019, the Additional Munsiffs' Court-II, Kozhikode allowed I.A.No.5024 of 2018 in O.S.No.854 of 2018 by Ext.R4(b) order, whereby the Grama Panchayat is prohibited from issuing licence to the petitioner Trust for starting ice plant or other connected activities in the building illegally constructed, without complying the CRZ Rules and without obtaining prior permission from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, until disposal of the suit. In Ext.R4(b) order, the Munsiffs' Court noticed that the petitioner Trust constructed the building and borewell in violation of the Building Rules and without obtaining prior permission from the CRZ Authority. Though the Grama Panchayat issued a notice to stop the construction, the petitioner Trust continued the construction without obtaining prior permission from the CRZ Authority, in the property in question, which is situated adjacent to Chaliyar River, under CRZ zone. The petitioner Trust has filed this writ petition before this Court, suppressing the aforesaid facts. Even after Ext.R4(b) order of injunction, the petitioner Trust is running an ice plant in W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 12 the said property, where large quantity of ammonium nitrate is stored. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and also the learned counsel for the additional 4[th] respondent. 11. The petitioner filed this writ petition before the Vacation Bench on 06.05.2019, challenging Ext.P3 order dated 15.11.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent, whereby the 3[rd] respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has been directed to demolish the illegal constructions made by the petitioner Trust and to submit a report before the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, at the earliest. As evident from Ext.P3, based on a complaint made by the additional 4[th] respondent regarding the illegal constructions made by the petitioner Trust, the District Town Planner and also the Member Secretary of the District Level Committee of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Kozhikode conducted an inspection and submitted a report dated 03.08.2018, reporting that the petitioner Trust had W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 13 constructed three buildings without obtaining CRZ clearance. Out of those buildings, one building is under construction. The petitioner Trust has also dug a borewell. The said report was considered in the 98[th] meeting of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority held on 15.10.2018 and it was decided vide decision No.98.03.04 to demolish the illegal constructions. 12. In Paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is averred that, based on Ext.P3 order, O.S.No.854 of 2018 is filed before the Additional Munsiffs' Court, Kozhikode in which the Munsiff's Court granted an order of injunction restraining the Grama Panchayat from issuing any permission to start the ice plant. However, a perusal of Ext.R4(b) order would indicate that O.S.No.854 of 2018 was not one filed based on Ext.P3 order dated 15.11.2018. 13. Section 8 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 deals with powers of vacation Judge. As per sub-section (1) of Section 8, during the adjournment of the High Court the Chief Justice shall nominate a single Judge of the High Court for hearing of all matters, which require to be W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 14 immediately or promptly dealt with and such Judge shall have all the powers of the High Court, except in cases in which such power must be exercised under the provisions of any law by more than one Judge. As per sub-section (2), it shall be competent for the Chief Justice during any such adjournment of the High Court to constitute a Bench of two Judges or a Full Bench for the hearing of any case. The circumstances, which necessitated filing of this writ petition during Vacation Bench, challenging Ext.P3 order dated 15.11.2018, are not discernible from the averments in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any circumstance which necessitated the filing of this writ petition during Vacation Bench, invoking the provisions under Section 8 of the Kerala High Court Act. 14. Similarly, the circumstances in which the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order, without the complainant before the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority in the party array, who is none other than the plaintiff in O.S.No.854 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Munsiffs' Court-II, Kozhikode, who secured W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 15 Ext.R4(b) order of injunction on 12.04.2019 in I.A.No.5024 of 2018, are also not discernible from the pleadings on record. On noticing the fact that the said complainant is a necessary party to this writ petition, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Prabodh Varma's case (supra)** , the petitioner Trust was directed to file an application to implead him as additional respondent. Despite the order of this Court dated 29.05.2019, the petitioner did not pay process to serve notice on the additional 4[th] respondent. Without disclosing the said fact, on 21.06.2019, permission was sought for to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order of demolition issued by the Grama Panchayat. Thereafter, the learned counsel, who represented the petitioner, relinquished vakalath and another counsel entered appearance, through whom I.A.No.2 of 2019 is filed, seeking permission to withdraw this writ petition on the ground that some factual errors had crept in when this writ petition was filed and due to unforeseen circumstances, some relevant documents were W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 16 omitted to be produced and marked in this writ petition. 15. In **Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]** , wherein the Apex Court held that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the Writ Courts would become impossible. 16. In **Prestige Lights' case (supra)** the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 17 discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 17. In **K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India** **Ltd. [(2008) 12 SCC 481]** , the Apex Court held that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 18 (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts". 18. In **K.D. Sharma's case (supra)** , the Apex Court held further that, if the primary object as highlighted in **R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [1917** **(1) KB 486]** is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 19 further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 19. Therefore, it is well settled that, a litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands and clean objects. The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no person would be allowed to abuse the judicial process, particularly, in public law remedy. In writ proceedings, the Court places implicit faith on the parties and their pleadings, as it does not indulge in any fact finding or roving enquiry of what has been asserted. Since Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouses equity jurisprudence, a litigant who has approached the Court with unclean hands, without disclosing full facts, is not entitled for any reliefs. 20. In **Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others (1995) 3 SCC 757** the Apex Court held that W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 20 filing of false affidavit, or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions, because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. 21. In **Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another [(2011) 5 SCC 496]** , the Apex Court expressed the view that filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. In **Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Limited and others (2016) 3 SCC 70]** , the Apex Court held that the observations in **Muthu Karuppan's case (cited supra)** was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings. 22. In **Usha Nanthini v. Regional Transport** W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 21 ## **Authority, Palakkad and another [2018 (2) KHC 89]** this Court held that, once it is found that the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by suppressing material facts and making false statements, such an attempt made by the petitioner to abuse the process of this Court has to be dealt with appropriately. In such cases this Court has ample power to decline the permission sought for withdrawal of the writ petition. Dismissal of such writ petitions imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, in order to prevent abuse of process of this Court and to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. 23. The law laid down as above by this Court in **Usha Nanthini's case (supra)** was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 21.02.2018 in W.A.No.455 of 2018 and paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads thus; “4. After going through the impugned judgment and the material in the writ appeal, we find that the appellant faces a grave charge-suppressing the material facts and misleading the Court. In fact, Usha Nanthini herself, on the learned Single Judge's W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 22 direction, filed an affidavit pleading that she may be pardoned “if any wrong information is made in the writ petition”. She pleaded with the Court to permit her to withdraw the writ petition. The learned Single Judge refused - rightly so.” 24. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, this Court finds that this is a fit case in which this writ petition will have to be dismissed with exemplary cost; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner Trust to challenge Ext.P3 communication dated 15.11.2018 issued by the 2[nd] respondent and also the order of demolition stated to have been issued by the Grama Panchayat in appropriate proceedings. 25. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner Trust, imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), which the petitioner Trust shall pay to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, an authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 providing free legal service to the weaker sections of the society. Such payment shall be made within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 23 this judgment. In case the petitioner Trust fails to pay the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) within the time limit specified as above, it would be open to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority to recover the said amount by initiating revenue recovery proceedings, in terms of G.O.(Ms.)No.107/2011/RD dated 26.2.2011, whereby the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 were made applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any person or class of persons to the said Authority. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/20/8 W.P.(C).No.13335/2019 24 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE PETITIONER TO FILE PETITION.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.09.2018 FOR REGULARIZATION,** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.3579/A2/2018/KCZMA DATED 15.11.2018.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DATED 13.12.2018 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.** **EXHIBIT R4 B TRUE COPY OF THE INJECTION ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF,KOZHIKODE-II DATED 12.4.2019**