Jai Bharath Educational Foundation and Cochhin Arts and Science College @ K.M.M College v. State of Kerala and others (W.P.(C) Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **WP(C) NO. 41765 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 JAI BHARATH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION , KAITHAPPADATH BUILDING, PIPELINE JUNCTION, THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM 682021 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, AM ABOOBACKAR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O A K MOIDEEN, ANJIKKATH HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682021.** - **2 COCHIN ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE @ K.M.M COLLEGE, MANAKKAKADAV, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM PIN 683565 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, DR RANJITH K PHILIP, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O K V PHILIP.** - **BY ADV MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695001.** - **2 DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN 695004.** - **3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHAIRMAN DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM PIN 682030 .** - **4 GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN 682030.** - **5 TAHSILDAR(LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM PIN 683542.** - **6 KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KUMARAPURAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683565. BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA GP - DEEPA V** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **01.04.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).5313/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 2 : ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **WP(C) NO. 5313 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 JAI BHARATH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION AGED 65 YEARS** - **KAITHAPPADATH BUILDING, PIPELINE JUNCTION, THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM 682021 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, A M ABOOBACKAR, S/O A K MOIDEEN, ANJIKKATH HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021** - **2 COCHIN ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE @ K.M.M COLLEGE AGED 36 YEARS** - **MANAKKAKADAV, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, DR RANJITH K PHILIP, S/O K V PHILIP, PIN - 683565** **BY ADV MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001** - **2 DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004** - **3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030** - **4 GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030** - **5 TAHSILDAR(LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542** - **6 KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KUMARAPURAM P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683565 BY ADV ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **01.04.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).41765/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 3 : ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(C) Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1[st ] day of April, 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** ## W.P.(C) No.41765 of 2022 The above writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order and for a consequential direction to the 4[th] respondent to issue necessary special transit passes / O(A) forms to transport the ordinary earth which is already heaped in the property in question. 2. It is averred that the 1[st] petitioner is a trust which is running various educational institutions in the State of Kerala and the 2[nd] petitioner is the Principal of one of the colleges under the 1[st] petitioner. The petitioners would contend that the play ground of the 2[nd] petitioner college has became unusable due to deposit of earth and stones in the heavy rainfall from 2018 onwards. Apprehending possibility of a landslide near the playground, the authorities have decided to construct a proper retention wall at 3 levels. For construction of retention wall and for the renovation for the playground, extraction of ordinary earth has become inevitable. Thereupon the 2[nd] petitioner submitted an application/intimation before the 4[th] respondent as per Ext.P2 in this regard which was W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 4 : duly received by the office of the 4[th] respondent and the said aspect was also intimated by the 2[nd] petitioner to the 6[th] respondent as per Ext.P3. The petitioners awaited for a period of one month expecting any communication either from the 4[th] respondent or 6[th] respondent in response to Exts.P2 and P3. Thereafter they proceeded with the work. The 1[st] petitioner submitted an application before the 6[th] respondent for the construction of a building in the premises and the 6[th] respondent on a wrong understanding that the property in question is a landslide prone area, decided to seek clarification from the 3[rd] respondent and submitted Ext.P4 in this regard. Thereupon Ext.P5 report was submitted by the 5[th] respondent wherein it is stated that 700 loads of ordinary earth is heaped in the property and that the same has not been transported outside the area. The 5[th] respondent again submitted Ext.P6 report confirming the observation made in Ext.P5. A similar report was also submitted by the 4[th] respondent to the 3[rd] respondent intimating that ordinary earth has been heaped in the premises and the same is not transported from the site. Thereafter the 3[rd] respondent intimated the 6[th] respondent to the effect that the property in question has not been listed in the red zone list of the State Disaster Management Authority and W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 5 : directed that the construction of the concrete retention wall shall be completed at the earliest and also that building permit may be issued in accordance with law. While so, Ext.P9 order was issued by the 4[th] respondent wherein a direction was issued to the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.5,46,014/- alleging illegal excavation and transportation of ordinary earth and also an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compounding fee. The petitioners submit that Ext.P9 is not preceded by any show cause notice and the same is against the dictum laid down by this Court in _**Biju K Varghese v. Geologist, Mining and Geologist Department, District Office, Cherthala [2020(6) KHC 450]**_ . The petitioner also relies on Ext.P10 wherein in similar circumstances this Court has interfered and set aside the impugned orders. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4[th] respondent wherein it is contended that the District Collector as per Ext.R4(a) directed the 4[th] respondent to submit a report on the illicit mining of ordinary earth and accordingly a site inspection was conducted and in the inspection it was found that huge quantity of earth has been excavated towards south from the backside of KMM college building for a distance of 54 metres and that the excavated earth was dumped to form 12 metres high heap, W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 6 : compromising safety. Thereupon Ext.R4(c) report was submitted before the District Collector by the 4[th] respondent. While so, Ext.R4(d) request was made by the 2[nd] respondent intimating that they are renovating their playground and constructing a retaining wall to prevent landslip and that ordinary earth will not be transported outside or sold. But in Ext.R4(d) it is not mentioned that large scale excavation of more than 8000 Metric Tonnes of ordinary earth from a high rise area is required for undertaking the said work. On inspection it is also revealed that the college cannot renovate its playground without removing the excavated heaps of ordinary earth outside the premises as they have no area to safely stack such huge volume of earth. The District Collector heard the petitioners and as per Ext.R4(e) order, directed the 4[th] respondent to penalise the petitioners by levying three times royalty and also to give permission to utilise the stacked earth for Government works. It is in compliance of Ext.R4(e) that Ext.P9 proceedings have been issued by the 4[th] respondent. The petitioners have started excavation of ordinary earth from the area even before giving Ext.P2 communication and in the said circumstances Ext.R4(f) stop memo was issued by the Village Officer. It is contended that the illegality committed by the petitioners is in W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 7 : clear violation of Section 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short ' the Act, 1957) by illegally mining 8266.9 Metric Tonnes of ordinary earth. It is contended on the strength of Ext.R4(g) Government Order, the District Collector is also an empowered officer to make proceedings as per the provisions of the Act, 1957. W.P.(C) No.5313 of 2023 4. The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order issued by the District Collector, which is produced as Ext.R4(e) along with the counter affidavit of the 4[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.41765 of 2022. Almost similar contentions were raised in this writ petition also including that the District Collector cannot direct the Geologist to take action inasmuch as the Geologist being the proper authority to take action, has to independently consider the issue and pass orders in accordance with law, and the order passed under the dictation of a higher authority, the same cannot be treated as passed in accordance with law. It is also contended that Ext.P8 communication was issued by the District Collector to the local authority on 03.07.2022 in File No.D3.3036/2022 and Ext.P10 was also issued on the very same file number and on the very same day. On the strength of Section 21(4) of the Act, 1957 the W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 8 : petitioner submits that the power of the 3[rd] respondent District Collector is only to seize the articles which are liable to be seized and the 3[rd] respondent has no power or authority to confiscate any minerals nor there is power to pass an order of penalty/fine, which could be done only by a court of competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. In the light of the same, it is also contended that by issuing Ext.P10, the District Collector has travelled beyond his powers and order of confiscation of minerals as per Ext.P10 is not legally sustainable. It is further contended that the petitioners have only to comply with the Rule 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (in short ' the Rules, 2015) which has been duly complied with as is evident from Ext.P2 and that the direction in Ext.P10 to confiscate the sand and to impose penalty for extraction of ordinary earth without permission is against Rule 106 of the Rules, 2015 inasmuch no permit is required for the work undertaken by the petitioners. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of both sides. 6. The petitioners rely on the judgment of this Court in _**President, Vennoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.675 v. State of Kerala [2023 (1) KHC 543]**_ to contend for the position that since Ext.P9 has been issued by the Geologist based on the W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 9 : direction issued by the District Collector, which is impugned as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.5313 of 2023 was under the dictation of the District Collector and in the said judgment it was held that an order passed under the dictation by an authority, which is statutorily bound to pass the order independently or on selfsatisfaction, is _ex facie_ illegal. The petitioners also relying on the judgment in _**Sajeer v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam [2017 (5) KHC 651]**_ submits that going by Section 21 of the Act, 1957 it is for the competent Court to order confiscation on finding of guilt being entered under the MMDR Act. The petitioners also rely on the judgment in _**Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others [2015 KHC 2195]**_ to contend for the position that no power has been conferred upon the District Magistrate or for that purpose on any other authority to dispose of the seized good except upon the Court under Section 21(4A) of the Act, 1957. The specific contention of the petitioners is that the playground of the college became unusable due to deposition of earth due to the heavy rainfall from 2018 onwards and due to the possibility of a landslide near the playground, they have decided to construct a proper retention wall. The petitioners submit that after the issuance of Ext.P2 intimation they have waited for about one W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 10 : month and it is only thereafter that they have started to remove the ordinary earth from the property. The contention of the petitioners is that going by Rule 106 of the Rules, 2015 in any case or class of cases such as construction of common facilities or residential building where extraction of minor mineral is inevitable as a part of the work, the person doing such work is exempted from obtaining quarrying permit/lease under these rules and that before extraction of minor minerals, the person concerned need only intimate the competent authority his intention to carry out the works along with a detailed proposal for excavation/use/transportation and furnish necessary documents as required by the competent authority in this regard. The rule further mandates that if the extracted mineral is used as building material in the property from where the same is extracted then the person concerned shall remit royalty for all minerals except ordinary earth and if the extracted mineral including ordinary earth is to be transported outside the work site, the competent authority may issue special mineral transit passes after collecting the royalty. The petitioners also rely on the explanation to the said rule, which provides that for the purpose of the said rule, “common facility” includes waiting sheds, public wells, public libraries and W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 11 : reading rooms, recognized education institutions, temples, churches, mosques used for public purpose. Based on the said rule and the explanation, it is the contention of the petitioners that what has been undertaken by them is extraction of mineral which is inevitable as part of the work and therefore they does not require a quarrying permit/lease and further that since a recognized educational institution comes under the definition of “common facility” they are entitled for the benefit of Rule 106 of the Rule, 2015. The petitioners also rely on Exts.P5, P6 and P7 reports which specifically provides that ordinary earth is heaped in the premises but the same has not been transported from the site. The petitioners submit that by Ext.P8 necessary permission has been granted by the District Collector directing the local authority to see that the ordinary earth is removed from the property and the construction of the concrete retention wall shall be completed and that necessary building permit shall be issued. The petitioners further submit that it is on the very same file number and on the very same date, ie., 03.07.2022 that Ext.P10 order has been issued by the District Collector which is impugned in W.P.(C) No.5313 of 2023, wherein there is a finding that 700 load of ordinary earth has been removed without any permission and therefore three times W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 12 : royalty should be imposed and the ordinary earth heaped in the property is to be confiscated and that it is based on Ext.P10 communication that Ext.P9 order has been issued by the Geologist whereby compounding fee and royalty was imposed alleging illegal extraction of ordinary earth. The contention of the petitioners is that the playground used by the college has become useless due to the deposition of earth and stone due to heavy rain fall from 2018 onwards and that only after submitting Ext.P2 intimation as mandated under Rule 106 of the Rules, 2015, they have undertaken the extraction of the ordinary earth from the property, whereas the stand taken by the respondents is that they have extracted large extent of ordinary earth of about 8266.9 Metric Tonnes even before the issuance of Ext.P2 and it is in the said circumstances that Ext.R4(f) stop memo was issued by the Village Officer. 7. The learned Government Pleader relying upon Section 4(1) of the Act, 1957 submits that the petitioners are liable to obtain necessary permit in this regard and the present action of the petitioners in removing the ordinary earth is in violation of Rule 4(1). 8. Yet another aspect to be noted is that the permission was W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 13 : granted by the District Collector as per Ext.P8 on 03.07.2022 directing that the ordinary earth lying in the property could be removed and that the construction of the retaining wall should be permitted and that necessary building permit is to be issued to the petitioners in this regard. But Ext.P10 communication produced in W.P.(C) No.5313 of 2023, which lead to the issuance of Ext.P9 order, was also issued by the District Collector on the very same file and on the very same day, ie., 03.07.2022. The petitioners would contend that Ext.P9 has been issued under the dictation of the higher authority. Though the Government Pleader would contend based on Ext.R4(g) Government Order that the District Collector is also an empowered officer to take action under the provisions of the Act, 1957, the action has been taken by the Geologist as per Ext.P9. Therefore, going by the judgment in P _**resident, Vennoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd**_ 's case cited (Supra), Ext. P9 order, which has been issued as per the directions issued by the District Collector cannot be said to be an independent decision of the Geologist. Further, a perusal of Ext.P9 would reveal that the said order was issued solely based on the directions issued by the District Collector as per Ext.P10 and that none of the procedures as contemplated in _**Biju K. Varghese**_ 's case has been W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 14 : fulfilled before issuing Ext.P9. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that Ext.P9 order is liable to be interfered with and accordingly Ext.P9 is set aside. 9. Another aspect to be noted is regarding Ext.P10 communication issued by the District Collector, which is impugned in W.P.(C) No.5313 of 2023. Rule 21(4A) of the Act, 1957 mandates that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other things seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court. Going by the said provisions of the Act, 1957, the authority to order confiscation of the goods is on the court competent to take cognizance of the offence. In the present case the direction to confiscate the ordinary earth is by the District Collector, not a competent authority to do so and therefore, I am of the view that Ext.P10 is liable to be interfered with. In _**Sajeer**_ 's case cited (Supra) the court has held that it is for the court empowered to take cognizance could take further proceedings based on Section 21 of the Act, 1957. A similar view was expressed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in _**Rajendra Singh's case cited (Supra)**_ W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 15 : wherein it is specifically stated that no power has been conferred upon the District Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 21(4) and 21(4A) and it is only the court which is empowered to take further action in this regard including an order for confiscation. In the light of the above, I am of the view that Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.5313 of 2023 is also liable to be interfered with and is accordingly quashed. 10. While considering the rival contentions of both sides I find that there is a dispute as to whether the extraction has been done after issuance of Ext.P2 or it was done even prior to that. In the counter affidavit it is specifically contended that there is large scale excavation of more 8000 Metric Tonns of ordinary earth from a high risk area and in Ext.R4(d) communication issued by the petitioner, there is no mention that such removal of ordinary earth is required for the purpose of the work. Rule 106 of the Rules, 2015 also mandates that no permit/lease is required for extraction of minor mineral is inevitable as part of the work. Whether removal of 8000 Metric Tonnes of ordinary earth was inevitable for undertaking the construction of a playground or for a construction of a retaining wall or any other building therein, is a matter which should be gone into by the Geologist. Though I have set aside W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 16 : Ext.P9 order of the Geologist there will be a direction to the 4[th] respondent - Geologist to reconsider the matter, strictly in accordance with law untrammeled by the observations made in Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.5313 of 2023, since I have already set aside the said order. While reconsidering the matter as directed above, the Geologist shall also take into consideration whether the extraction of the ordinary earth to an extent of 8000 Metric Tonns was in consonance with Rule 106 of the Rules, 2015. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 4[th] respondent within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioners and in strict compliance of _**Biju K. Varghese**_ ' case cited above. The petitioners shall also maintain status quo in respect of the subject property till the proceedings are finalised as directed above. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** sm/ ## W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 17 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41765/2022** |**PETITIONER EXHIBITS**|| |---|---| |**Exhibit P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF**| ||**PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION FOR THE ACADEMIC**| ||**YEAR 2022-23 ISSUED BY THE MAHATHMA**| ||**UNIVERSITY DATED 07/11/2022.**| |**Exhibit P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION/ INTIMATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE**| ||**4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12/01/2022.**| |**Exhibit P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION SUBMITTED BY**| ||**THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 12/01/2022 .**| |**Exhibit P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 17/03/2022 .**| |**Exhibit P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 19/03/2022.**| |**Exhibit P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 01/04/2022.**| |**Exhibit P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 22/04/2022.**| |**Exhibit P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 03/07/2022.**| |**Exhibit P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 16/07/2022.**| |**Exhibit P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**06/12/2022 IN WP(C) 24614 OF 2022.**| |**RESPONDENT EXHIBITS**|| |**EXHIBIT R4(b)**|**A true copy of the photographs of the**| ||**inspected area**| |**EXHIBIT R4(c)**|**A true copy of the report submitted by**| ||**the Geologist No. DOE/1102/E2/22 dated**| ||**22.04.2022 to the District Collector,**| ||**Ernakulam**| |**EXHIBIT R4(d)**|**A true copy of the communication dated**| ||**13.01.2022 of Principal KMM College,**| ||**Kakkanad**| ## W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 18 : |**EXHIBIT R4(e)**|**A true copy**|**of**|**the communication dated**|**the communication dated**| |---|---|---|---|---| ||**03.07.2022**|**of**|**District**|**Collector,**| ||**Ernakulam**|||| |**EXHIBIT R4(f)**|**A true copy **|**of the Stop **||**Notice No.**| ||**10/2021 dated**|**01.06.2021**||| |**EXHIBIT R4(g)**|**A true copy**|**of**|**the Notification G.O.(P)**|| ||**No, 55/2015/ID (SRO No. 295/2015) dated**|||| ||**06.05.2015**|||| |**EXHIBIT R4(a)**|**A true copy**|**of**|**the communication dated**|| ||**25.03.2022**|**of**|**District**|**Collector,**| ||**Ernakulam**|||| ## W.P.(C). Nos.41765 of 2022 & 5313 of 2023 : 19 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5313/2023** |**PETITIONER EXHIBITS**|| |---|---| |**Exhibit P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF**| ||**PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION FOR THE ACADEMIC**| ||**YEAR 2022-23 ISSUED BY THE MAHATHMA**| ||**UNIVERSITY DATED 07/11/2022**| |**Exhibit P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION/ INTIMATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE**| ||**4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12/01/2022**| |**Exhibit P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION SUBMITTED BY**| ||**THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 12/01/2022**| |**Exhibit P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 17/03/2022**| |**Exhibit P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 19/03/2022**| |**Exhibit P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 01/04/2022**| |**Exhibit P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 22/04/2022**| |**Exhibit P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 03/07/2022**| |**Exhibit9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 16/07/2022**| |**Exhibit P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 03/07/2022 NUMBERED AS**| ||**D3-3036/2022**|