George, Hafsa and Muhammed Salim A.A. v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.35911 OF 2019(L)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**GEORGE,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 67 YEARS**| ||**S/O. OUSEPH, KODIYAN HOUSE, PALATHURUTH,**| ||**CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O.683 512.**| |**2**|**HAFSA,**| ||**W/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THANIPADAM,**| ||**PARAVUTHARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR P.O.683 513.**| |**3**|**MUHAMMED SALIM A.A,**| ||**PADINJARE KUTTIKKATTU THARAYIL HOUSE, MUTTUPURAM,**| ||**MANNAM P.O.NORTH PARAVUR-683 520.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.V.T.LITHA SMT.K.R.MONISHA SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB SHRI.K.K.RAJAN SHRI.ANTONY SAVIO** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT**| ||**DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.**| |**2**|**THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,**| ||**PALAYAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.**| |**3**|**THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CIVIL**| ||**STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.**| |**4**|**PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, NORTH**| ||**PARAVUR-683 573.**| |**5**|**THE SECRETARY,**| ||**PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, NORTH**| ||**PARAVUR-683 573.**| |**6**|**THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,**| W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 2 **PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR-683 573.** **7 PARAVUR TOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, VYAPARA BHAVAN, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513.** - **8 PARAVUR TALUK MERCHANTS WELFARE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, VYAPARA BHAVAN, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.G.RANJITA R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN R4 BY ADV. SMT.T.N.SREEKALA R4 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL C THOMAS R4 BY ADV. SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.SOORI R4 BY ADV. SHRI.BABU M. R7-8 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY R7-8 BY ADV. SRI.EBIN MATHEW R7-8 BY ADV. SRI.P.ROHIT PREMANANDAN SHENOY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners own three shop rooms bearing door Nos.VIII/178/38, VIII/178/35 and VIII/178/98 in the 'Vyapara Bhavan' constructed by the 7[th] respondent Paravur Town Merchants Association and the 8[th] respondent Paravur Taluk Merchants Welfare Society, in 1.22850 acres of land in Survey Nos.286/17 and 286/18 of Paravur Village, on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit. As evident from Exts.P2 and P3 sale deeds dated 06.02.2004 and 10.02.2005 petitioners 1 and 2 have purchased shop rooms bearing door Nos.VIII/178/38 and VIII/178/35 with proportionate undivided share in the land. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 3[rd] petitioner purchased shop room bearing door No.VIII/178/98 with proportionate undivided share in the land, vide sale deed No.2063/2005 of the Sub Registrar Office, North Paravur dated 21.03.2015. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 communication dated 02.12.2019 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Senior Town Planner to the 5[th] respondent Secretary of the 4[th] respondent Paravur Municipality and also Ext.P10 minutes of the personal hearing conducted by the 3[rd] respondent on 20.11.2019. The ## W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 4 petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to hear them and consider and decide their objections against regularisation of the illegal construction made by respondents 7 and 8, including the objections raised in Exts.P6 and P12 representations, before taking a final decision on the application for regularisation. 2. On 27.12.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel for Paravur Municipality took notice for respondents 4 to 6. The 7[th] respondent Paravur Town Merchants Association entered appearance through counsel and urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the 8[th] respondent Paravur Taluk Merchants Welfare Society. This Court granted an interim order to keep in abeyance the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10 for a period of three weeks. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. 3. The 3[rd] respondent Senior Town Planner has filed a statement opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Respondents 7 and 8 have also filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, along with I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking an order to vacate the interim order ## W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 5 granted in this writ petition. They have also filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 seeking an order to accept Ext.R7(y) as additional document. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter affidavit, through the learned Standing Counsel for Paravur Municipality, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 to 6 and also the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8. 5. Ext.A9 communication dated 02.12.2019 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Senior Town Planner, which is under challenge in this writ petition, is one issued in purported compliance of Ext.P7 judgment of this Court dated 14.10.2019 in W.P.(C)No.8377 of 2019. Ext.P10, which is under challenge in this writ petition, is the minutes of the personal hearing conducted by the 3[rd] respondent on 20.11.2019. Paragraphs 6, 7 and also the operative portion of Ext.P7 judgment read thus; “6. Obviously, what was intended was that the construction, as is available today, will have to be regularised based on the building plan and permit approved in the year 2009 and adverting to the law as W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 6 it stood then. This is because, as rightly stated by Sri Dinesh Shenoy - learned counsel for the petitioners - once the building has been completed based on the law as it stood in the year 2009 or 2012, as the case may be, to make it compliant with the laws as it stands today would require demolition of certain structures and even the floors as were permitted through Ext.P4, and I am certain that this was not the intent of the learned Judge of this Court when Ext.P23 judgment had been issued. What was directed therein was that the petitioners can make an application in terms of law for regularisation of the building, so that same can be considered by the competent authorities without any further delay. 7. In such view, I have no doubt that the directions in Ext.P36, cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner's building will have to comply with the law as it stands now but only that it be regularised adverting to the approved plan and permit on the strength of which it was constructed and, therefore, the 2[nd] respondent must reconsider the matter without any further delay. In the afore circumstances, I set side Ext.P36 order and direct the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application for regularisation of the building, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them and adverting to my observations above as also to the directions in Ext.P23 judgment, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and to issue appropriate orders to the 1[st] W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 7 respondent in terms of law thereafter.” 6. By Ext.P7 judgment, this Court disposed of W.P. (C)No.8377 of 2019 filed by respondents 7 and 8 herein, by setting aside the order dated 12.02.2019 of the 3[rd] respondent Senior Town Planner (Ext.P36 in that writ petition) and the said respondent was directed to reconsider the application for regularisation made by respondents 7 and 8, after affording them an opportunity of being heard and adverting to the observations contained in Ext.P7 judgment as also to the directions in Ext.P8 judgment of this Court dated 13.06.2016 in W.P.(C).No.38177 of 2010 (Ext.P23 in that writ petition), as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and to issue appropriate orders to the 4[th] respondent Municipality in terms of law thereafter. 7. Respondents 7 and 8 herein filed W.P.(C).No.38177 of 2010 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2010 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (Ext.P21 in that writ petition) in Appeal No.887 of 2010 filed by an individual against the building permit granted to them and also the order dated 10.12.2010 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (Ext.P22 in that writ petition) in ## W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 8 Appeal No.825 of 2010 filed against the stop memo issued by the Municipality with respect to the very same building. By Ext.P8 judgment dated 13.06.2016, this Court disposed of W.P.(C).No.38177 of 2010, by setting aside the order dated 10.12.2010 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.887 of 2010 and by directing the Municipality to permit respondents 7 and 8 herein to regularise the construction and issue completion and occupancy certificates as also number the additional construction in accordance with law, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C).No.38177 of 2010 read thus; “5. What remains to be considered is as to whether Exhibit P21 can be sustained. In Exhibit P21, as is seen from paragraph 3, the ground raised by the complainant before the Tribunal was that the impugned permit was issued consequent to a misrepresentation made by the 2[nd] respondent [1[st] petitioner herein] with respect to 16.665 cents of property belonging to the 4[th] respondent [2[nd] respondent herein]. The Tribunal obviously did not consider the said aspect and went at a tangent and examined whether the application itself was proper. Finding that the application filed by an individual, on behalf of an Association without there being any connection traced between the applicant and the W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 9 Association was bad; the Tribunal set aside the permit. 6. It is to be noticed that there was not even such a contention raised by the appellant. Further, it is also seen that the individual who had made the application did it as an office bearer of the Association on behalf of the Association. The said individual is also seen to be one of the parties in Exhibit P23 title deed; who along with five others, accepted the conveyance in favour of the Association. The 3 rd respondent who is the appellant before the Tribunal and the 4[th] respondent who was the owner of 16.665 cents of property are not represented when the matter was taken up for hearing. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submits on instructions that no proceedings were taken pursuant to Exhibit P22, since the set back as provided in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 was made available by the purchase of 16.665 cents of the 2[nd] respondent. Taking all these circumstances into account, the only conclusion possible is that Exhibit P21 cannot be sustained. Exhibit P21 is set aside. The Municipality shall permit the petitioner to regularise the construction and issue completion and occupancy certificates as also number the additional construction in accordance with law, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.” 8. Ext.A9 communication dated 02.12.2019 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Senior Town Planner, in purported compliance of Ext.P7 judgment of this Court dated ## W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 10 ## 14.10.2019 in W.P.(C)No.8377 of 2019, reads thus; "സൂചനകളളിലലേയയ്ക്ക് തതാങ്കളുടടെ ശ്രദ്ധ ക്ഷണളിക്കുന. സൂചന (1) ഹളിയറളിറിംഗളി മളിനളിറയ്ക്ക്റയ്ക്ക് ഇലതതാടടെതാപറിം ഉള്ളടെകറിം ടചയ്യുന. അലതതാടടെതാപറിം ഹളിയറളിറിംഗളിൽ മുനളിറളിപതാലേളിറളിയളിൽ നളിനറിം അറളിയളിച്ചതു പ്രകതാരറിം കവലറജയ്ക്ക് ലേറിംഘനറിം പരളിഹരളിചറിം പുതുകളിയ ലലേ-ഔടയ്ക്ക് ആവശശ്യടമങ്കളിൽ ആയതളിനുള്ള നടെപടെളി റസസ്വീകരളിചറിം ടറക്രടറളികയ്ക്ക് ഫയലേളിൽ നടെപടെളി റസസ്വീകരളികതാവുന്നതതാടണന്നയ്ക്ക് അറളിയളിക്കുന.” ## 9. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union** **[1971 (1) All. E.R. 1148]** Lord Denning, M.R. observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In **Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120]** it was observed that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision - taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 10. In **Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16]** the Apex Court has held that public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language ## W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 11 used in the order itself. Following the principle laid down in **Gordhandas Bhanji** , the Apex Court has reiterated in **Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner** **[(1978) 1 SCC 405]** that, when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. 11. Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to above, the Apex Court in **Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC 364]** held that reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the ## W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 12 salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 12. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down in **Krishna Swami v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 605]** that, undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. In **B.A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport Authority [(2015) 4 SCC 515]** the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments on the subject has reiterated that the rule of reason is antithesis to arbitrariness in action and is a necessary concomitant of the principles of ## W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 13 natural justice. If a statutory or public authority/functionary does not record the reasons, its decision would be rendered arbitrary, unfair, unjust and violating Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of such authority/ functionary to give reasons and to pass a speaking order that excludes arbitrariness in action. Referring to the facts of that case, the Apex Court noticed that, there is no consideration of the objections except mentioning the arguments of the rival parties and that objections both factual and legal have not been considered much less reasons assigned to overrule them. 14. The object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. It would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. At the same time, it is not the requirement that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. What is necessary is that W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 14 the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority. 15. The decision taken by the 3[rd] respondent in Ext.P9 is not supported by reasons. The learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 would submit that, though Ext.P9 is not happily worded, what was in the mind of the 3[rd] respondent while issuing Ext.P9 is discernible from his statement dated 27.02.2020. The learned Government Pleader would also rely heavily on the said statement of the 3[rd] respondent. 16. In **Mohinder Singh Gill** , reiterating the law laid down in **Gordhandas Bhanji** , the Apex Court held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the decision taken by the 3[rd] respondent in Ext.P9 cannot be sustained in law. Ext.P10 is only the minutes of the personal ## W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 15 hearing conducted by the 3[rd] respondent on 20.11.2019. 17. The learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 would submit that the construction of the building is already over in February, 2012 and any further delay in considering the application for regularisation would seriously prejudice the interest of the said respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 would submit that the parties shall appear before the 3[rd] respondent Senior Town Planner for personal hearing, on a date to be fixed by this Court. 18. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and also the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Exts.P9, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, and by directing the 3[rd] respondent Senior Town Planner to reconsider the application for regularisation made by respondents 7 and 8, after affording them and also the petitioners and the 5[th] Secretary of the Municipality an opportunity of being heard, adverting to the observations contained in Ext.P7 judgment as also to the directions in Ext.P8 judgment of this Court dated 13.06.2016 in W.P. (C).No.38177 of 2010, and pass a 'reasoned order', taking W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 16 note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, adverting to the factual and legal contentions raised by respondents 7 and 8 and also the petitioners and the 5[th] respondent Secretary of the Municipality. The 3[rd] respondent shall conduct personal hearing on **15.07.2020** at 11.30 am, without violating the applicable COVID-19 guidelines. The petitioners and respondents 7 and 8 shall submit their written submissions/argument notes and the 5[th] respondent Secretary of the Municipality shall produce the relevant files before the 3[rd] respondent, at the time of personal hearing. The 3[rd] respondent shall pass orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/3/7 W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 17 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO 434/2000 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2001** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO 885/2004 OF SRO, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 6.2.2004 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO 909/2005 OF SRO, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 10.2.2005** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT BA NO 439/2000 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 4.10.2002 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO BA NO 132/2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 2.2.2009** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 8.5.2015** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 8377/2019 DATED 14.10.2019** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 38177/2010 DATED 13.6.2016** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D/863/19 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 2.12.2019** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 20.11.2019** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE AND LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR DATED NIL** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2019** W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 18 ## **RESPONDENTS'EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.96/2020, MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARUR EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED 2063/05, PARUR SRO DATED 21/03/05 EXHIBIT R7(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3/10/2019 IN O.S.721/2014, MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR EXHIBIT R7(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/5/2015 IN I.A.NO.1840/2014 IN OS NO.721/2014, MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR EXHIBIT R7(d) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 7/8/2017 IN CMA.25/2015, ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR EXHIBIT R7(e) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.764/13, MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR EXHIBIT R7(f) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT 14/11/2014 IN WPC NO.25274/2014 EXHIBIT R7(g) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26/11/2014 IN WPC NO.25274/2014, HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXHIBIT R7(h) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CIRCULAR NO.31019/RA1/11/LSGD DATED 22/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT R7(i) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 16/8/2017 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT R7(j) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RELY DATED 30/1/2018 ISSUED BY THESE RESPONDENTS TO THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT R7(k) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.BA132/08 DATED 5/5/2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY, NORTH PARAVUR** W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 19 **EXHIBIT R7(l) TRUE PHOTOCOPY REPLY DATED 17/5/2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.7 EXHIBIT R7(m) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT DATED 18/6/2018 FILED BY PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY IN WPC.NO.6037/2018, HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXHIBIT R7(n) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18/7/2018 IN WPC.NO.6037/2018, HIGH COURT OF KERALA** - **EXHIBIT R7(o) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE MUNICIPALITY BEFORE THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT R7(p) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.D/3243/18 DATED 12/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT R7(q) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.BA132/2008 DATED 10/12/2019 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY, NORTH PARAVUR** - **EXHIBIT R7(r) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 12/12/2019 SUBMITTED BY THESE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY** - **EXHIBIT R7(s) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTERED BYELAWS OF THE PARAVUR VYAPARA BHAVAN SHOPPING COMPLEX ROOM OWNERS ASSOCIATION** - **EXHIBIT R7(t) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 16/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE PARAVUR VYAPARA BHAVAN SHOPPING COMPLEX ROOM OWNERS ASSOCIATION** - **EXHIBIT R7(u) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 20/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PARAVUR VYAPARA BHAVAN SHOPPING COMPLEX ROOM OWNERS ASSOCIATION** - **EXHIBIT R7(v) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY IN W.P.(C).NO.8377/2019, HIGH COURT OF KERALA** - **EXHIBIT R7(w) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 27/12/2019 ISSUED BY 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY** W.P.(C)No.35911 of 2019 (L) 20 **EXHIBIT R7(x) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED 6/2/2020 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT R7(y) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 18/03/2020 IN I.A.NO.2/2020 AND IN I.A.NO.5/2020 IN I.A.NO.2/2020 IN O.S.NO.96/2020 MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR**