George Vattukulam v. State of Kerala & Ors.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 17035 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` GEORGE VATTUKULAM, AGED 60 YEARS,S/O. JOSEPH, VATTUKULAM HOUSE, RAMAVARMAPURAM. P.O, TRISSUR, PIN – 680 631. ``` ``` BY ADV SHAJAHAN K.M. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.` - `2 ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.` - `3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.` - `4 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.` - `5 PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, HEAD OF FOREST FORCES, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 014.` - `6 ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (PROTECTION) , FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 014.` - `7 CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN DIVISION, KANNUR, PIN- 673 028.` - `8 PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR` **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **2** ``` (FOREST MANAGEMENT) , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 014. ``` - `9 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH WAYANAD, PIN - 670 645.` - `10 THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 003.` - `11 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIME BRANCH), SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 024.` - `12 E. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MLA, (FORMERLY MINISTER FOR REVENUE DURING 2016-2021) PARVATHY, PERUMBALA. P.O, KALANAD (VIA), KASARGOD - 671 317.` - `13 ROJI AUGUSTINE, MOONGANANIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAVATTA.P.O, WAYANAD- 673 122.` - `14 ANTO AUGUSTINE, MOONGANANIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAVATTA.P.O, WAYANAD- 673 122.` ``` BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA SRI.V.MANU, SR.G.P. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 24[th ] day of June, 2022 ## **S.Manikumar, C.J.** Earlier, finding that some of the documents enclosed in the writ petition were official documents and taking note of the objection of the learned Government Pleader, on 26.05.2022, we passed the following order: “Instant writ petition is filed by Mr. George Vattukulam, for the following reliefs: - “I. Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction, directing the State Government to hand over the investigation now conducted under the respondent No.11 to respondent No.10, the CBI. - II. Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to conduct further investigation under the direction and supervision of this Hon'ble Court.” 2. When the matter came up for admission, by inviting the attention of this court to Exhibits P12 and P14, details of call records of Mr.Anto Augustine – N.T.Sajan and Mr.Roji/Anto -Deepak Dharmadom, Mr.V.Manu, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the above said details of call records are not furnished to anybody under section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is reproduced: “69 Power to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource. - (1) Where the Central Government or a State **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **4** Government or any of its officers specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource. (2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) The subscriber or intermediary or any person in-charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency referred to in sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to- (a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or (b) intercept, monitor, or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or (c) provide information stored in computer resource. (4) The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” He further submitted that Exhibit P5 consolidated note of the Revenue Department dated 17.08.2020 of the Deputy Secretary is also an official record. 4. Attention of this court was also invited that earlier, when the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Mr.K.M.Shajahan filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.(C)No.14625 of 2021, as party in person, for impleading himself as an **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **5** additional respondent in the writ petition, this court, vide order dated 10.08.2021, dismissed the application. 5. He further submitted that Mr.K.M.Shajahan, who wanted to implead himself as a party respondent in W.P. (C)No.14625 of 2021 and whose request was rejected, himself is representing the present writ petitioner Mr.George Vattukulam, who was the same petitioner in W.P. (C)No.14625 of 2021. According to him, such a practice is not permissible in view of rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which reads thus: “9. An Advocate should not act or plead in any matter in which he is himself pecuniarily interested.” 6. Per contra, Mr.K.M.Shajahan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the documents referred to above are in public domain. That apart, he submitted that he has obtained the documents from various persons, who received the same through the Right To Information Act, 2005. 7. In the light of the statutory provisions stated supra and the facts on record, Mr.K.M.Shajahan, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to explain as regards rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules. 8. Petitioner is directed to file an affidavit as to how he has secured the documents stated supra, the source and also the persons who had furnished the same to him, within ten days from today. Post on 06.06.2022.” 2. Subsequently, when the matter came up on **6** ## **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** 09.06.2022 and on 10.06.2022, there was no appearance on behalf of the writ petitioner and thus, writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. Later, contending inter alia that non-appearance is not willful and deliberate, M.J.C.No.65 of 2022 was filed for restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed on 10.06.2022. Satisfying with the reasons assigned, on 22.06.2022, we rescinded the earlier order dated 10.06.2022 and accordingly restored the writ petition to file. We also directed the Registry to post the writ petition on 24.06.2022. Thus it is listed today. 4. As per the direction of this court, petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 06.06.2022 contending inter alia that the objections of the learned Government Pleader as regards rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules cannot be countenanced. 5. We have gone through the averments in support of the same and accordingly overruled the objections of the learned Government Pleader, on the said aspect. 6. Nevertheless, the directions issued by this court on **7** ## **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** 26.05.2022 as regards the source of documents and also the persons who had furnished the same through the Right To Information Act, 2005, have not been explained in the affidavit dated 06.06.2022. Absolutely, there are no averments touching upon the aspect as to how the abovesaid documents have been obtained. 7. When Mr.K.M.Shajahan, learned counsel for the petitioner was informed of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a public interest litigant has to furnish the source of information as regards the documents based on which the same have been filed in support of the prayers sought for, reply of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafale’s case, declined to accept the plea of the Central Government for action to be taken against those who have leaked the official information. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that if the source of the information is revealed, the informant would be put to dire consequences. Added further, he submitted that the investigation is at a standstill. Many of **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **8** the accused are released on bail. 9. We are of the view that the accused whether entitled to bail or not, has to be decided by the court where the case is pending. Petitioner’s contention that informant has to face dire consequences is not a ground for non-disclosure of the source of information. 10. At this juncture, it has also been noted that earlier when the matter came up for hearing, it was the submission of Mr.K.M.Shajahan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that all the documents referred to are in public domain and that the petitioner has obtained the same from various persons, who received the same through the Right to Information Act. 11. On the aspect of disclosure and the manner in which a public interest litigation has to be filed, we deem it fit to consider a few decisions: - (i) In **Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K.Rajan** **& Others** [(2003) 7 SCC 546], the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarised the principles with respect to filing a Public Interest Litigation and they are reproduced: - “(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **9** Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. [See **S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India** (1982) 2 SCC 494 **, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary** (1992) 4 SCC 305)] (ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public visa-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. [See **Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81)] (iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In **Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani** (AIR 1979 SCC 468), it was held: "2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **10** imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.” (See also _Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and Ors._ (2003) 5 SCALE 138) (iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See _Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, S.P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 333_ ] (v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **11** people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. [See **Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.** , 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and **Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri and others** [(1986) 1 SCC 100] (vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See **Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India and Others** 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251) (viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See **Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others** (1987) 1 SCC 227). (ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See **Bandhua Mukti** **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **12** **Morchai, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar** (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 644 and **A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu** (1999) 2 SCC 718). In **Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West Bengal and others** [(1987) 2 SCC 295], this Court held,- “61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extent its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the need, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such is required. But this does mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants." (ii) This Court in the unreported judgment dated 30.06.2020 in **B. Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors.** [W.P.(C) No.12109 of 2020], at paragraph 45, held thus: “45. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a public interest writ petition which lacks bona fides, lack of particulars satisfying the requirements of a PIL, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Having regard to decisions considered in _**Mythri Residents Association v. Secretary, Tripunithura Municipality and Others,** [2019 KHC 832]_ , it has been summarised by the journal thus: “(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **13** PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. (9) The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. (10) Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears. **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **14** (11) Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. (12) This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. (13) Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. (14) It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. (15) This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. (16) There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. (17) Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. (18) This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. (19) This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. (20) Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. (21) Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. (22) Courts protect the rule of law. (23) There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space. **15** ## **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** In the light of the above discussion and decisions and in the absence of valid explanation as to how the information has been obtained, we are of the view that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of a public interest litigation. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- **S.Manikumar Chief Justice** Sd/- **Shaji P.Chaly Judge** ## **vpv** **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **16** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17035/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O (MS) NO. 261/2020/REV. DATED 24.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.` - `Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O (MS) NO. 261/2020/REV. DATED 24.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 1634/2021/ HOME, DATED 11.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED ON 01-09-2021 IN WPC NO: 14625 OF 2021.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED ON 08-07-2020 IN WPC NO: 13678 OF 2020.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED NOTE NO. 187/U3/2019/REVENUE BY SMT. O.G.SALINI, DEPUTY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DATED 17.08.2020.` - `Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED NOTE NO. 187/U3/2019/REVENUE BY SMT. O.G.SALINI, DEPUTY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DATED 17.08.2020` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO.187/U3/2019/REVENUE BY THE REVENUE MINISTER,DATED 05.10.2020.` - `Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE NOTE NO.187/U3/2019/REVENUE BY THE THEN REVENUE MINISTER, DATED 05.10.2020.` **17** ## **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** |`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE NO:REV-`| |---|---| ||`U3/187/2019-REV BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,`| ||`REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DATED 19.11.2021.`| |`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE NO:REV-`| ||`U3/187/2019-REV BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,`| ||`REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DATED 19.11.2021 .`| |`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY THE LETTER NO. 84/1/2021/CCF-NC`| ||`WRITTEN BY SHRI. VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS,`| ||`CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN`| ||`CIRCLE, FOREST, KANNUR TO THE ADDITIONAL`| ||`PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF KOZHIKODE`| ||`DATED 17.02.2021.`| |`Exhibit P9 A`|`TYPED COPY OF THE LETTER NO 84/1/2021/CCF-`| ||`NC WRITTEN BY SHRI. VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS,`| ||`CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN`| ||`CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL`| ||`CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOZHIKODE`| ||`DATED ON 17.02.2021.`| |`Exhibit P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANT SUBMITTED BY`| ||`SHRI. SAMEER M K, RANGE FOREST OFFICER,`| ||`MEPPADY, TO THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF`| ||`CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST`| ||`FORCE, TRIVANDRUM, DATED 04.03.2021.`| |`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT NO.B3-`| ||`315/2021 SUBMITTED BY SHRI. RAJESH`| ||`RAVINDRAN, IFS, ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF`| ||`CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOZHIKODE TO THE`| ||`PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND`| ||`HEAD OF FOREST FORCE, TRIVANDRUM DATED`| ||`29.06.2021.`| |`Exhibit P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CALL DATA PARTICULARS OF`| ||`SHRI. N.T. SAJAN WITH SHRI.ANTO AUGUSTINE.`| |`Exhibit P13`|`TRUE COPY THE LETTER NO 84/1/2021/CCF-NC`| ||`WRITTEN BY SHRI. VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS,`| ||`CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN`| ||`CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL`| ||`CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOZHIKODE`| ||`DATED 17.02.2021.`| **18** ## **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** |`Exhibit P13`|`A`|`TYPED COPY OF THE LETTER NO 84/1/2021/CCF-`| |---|---|---| |||`NC WRITTEN BY SHRI. VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS,`| |||`CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN`| |||`CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL`| |||`CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOZHIKODE`| |||`DATED. 17.02.2021.`| |`Exhibit P14`||`TRUE COPY OF THE CALL DATA PARTICULARS OF`| |||`CONVERSATION SHRI. DEEPAK DHARMADOM HAD`| |||`WITH SHRI. ANTO AUGUSTINE.`| |`Exhibit P15`||`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI.`| |||`VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS, CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF`| |||`FOREST, NORTHERN CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE`| |||`ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF`| |||`FOREST, KOZHIKODE, DATED 17.02.2021. (PARA`| |||`1, 8, 9).`| |`Exhibit P15`|`A`|`TYPED COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI.`| |||`VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS, CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF`| |||`FOREST, NORTHERN CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE`| |||`ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF`| |||`FOREST, KOZHIKODE, DATED 17.02.2021. (PARA`| |||`1, 8, 9).`| |`Exhibit P16`||`TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT UNDER THE`| |||`HEADING "OLICHATHEVIDE" ("WHICH WAS THE`| |||`HIDEOUT)" APPEARED IN THE DAILY "MALAYALA`| |||`MANORAMA", DATED 27.08.2021.`| |`Exhibit P16`|`A`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF`| |||`PRESS REPORT UNDER THE HEADING`| |||`"OLICHATHEVIDE" ("WHICH WAS THE`| |||`HIDEOUT)"APPEARED IN THE DAILY "MALAYALA`| |||`MANORAMA", DATED 27.08.2021`| |`Exhibit P17`||`TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT UNDER THE`| |||`CAPTION "M V NIKESH KUMAR WITH COMPLIANT`| |||`AGAINST ACCUSED" WHICH APPEARED IN THE`| |||`DAILY "MALAYALA MANORAMA, DATED`| |||`09/09/2021.`| |`Exhibit P17`|`A`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF`| |||`PRESS REPORT UNDER THE CAPTION "M V NIKESH`| |||`KUMAR WITH COMPLIANT AGAINST ACCUSED"`| |||`WHICH APPEARED IN THE DAILY MALAYALA`| |||`MANORAMA DATED 09.09.2021.`| **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** **19** - `Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE OF PRESS REPORT UNDER THE CAPTION "ACCUSED IN MUTTIL TREE FELLING CASE RECEIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES" WHICH APPEARED IN THE DAILY "MALAYALA MANORAMA" DATED 09.09.2021.` - `Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF PRESS REPORT UNDER THE CAPTION "ACCUSED IN MUTTIL TREE FELLING CASE RECEIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES" WHICH APPEARED IN THE DAILY "MALAYALA MANORAMA" DATED 09.09.2021.` - `Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA WPC NO 13678/2020 DATED 8.7.2020.` - `Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THE MANORAMAONLINE.COM DATED 24.8.2021.` - `Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE NEW ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THE MANORAMAONLINE.COM DATED 24.8.2021.` - `Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THE MADHYAMAMONLINE.COM ON 25.8.2021.` - `Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THE MADHYAMAMONLINE.COM ON 25.8.2021.` - `Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THECUE.IN` - `Exhibit P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THECUE.IN` - `Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF SCREEN SHOT OF VISUAL WHICH APPEARED IN MARUNADANMALAYALEE.COM ON 26.8.2021.` **20** ## **W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022** ``` Exhibit P27TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SCREEN SHOT OF VISUAL WHICH APPEARED IN MARUNADANMALAYALEE.COM ON 26.8.2021 Exhibit P28TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SCREEN SHOT OF VISUAL WHICH APPEARED IN ASIANET.COM ``` //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE