K.B. Sumodh v. Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1945** **CON.CASE(C) NO. 327 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2020 IN WP(C) NO.33168/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.B. SUMODH, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.LATE BALAN, CIVIL LANE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR** **BY ADV K.R.SUNIL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 N. JYOTHI SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SIVASAKTHI BUILDING, THRISSUR,PIN-680 001** **2 V.A.SHEEJA SECRETARY, W/O.SATHEESH PALLATHU, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SIVASAKTHI BUILDING, THRISSUR,PIN-680 001** **BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** COC. No.327/2021 : 2 : ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN & N. NAGARESH, JJ.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Contempt of Court Case (C) No.327 of 2021 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 3[rd] day of July, 2023_ ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Nagaresh, J.**_ The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33168 of 2019 has invoked Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and has filed this Contempt of Court Case alleging wilful disobedience to the directions given by this Court in the judgment dated 10.01.2020 in the writ petition. 2. W.P.(C) No.33168 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Thrissivaperur Vadakkumnatha Temple, aggrieved by the permission granted to the 6[th] respondent-Municipal Corporation to conduct Shopping Festival at Vadakkumnatha Kshethra COC. No.327/2021 : 3 : Maidanam, approached this Court and sought to command the Cochin Devaswom Board to cancel/withdraw any permission granted to the Municipal Corporation for conduct of Shopping Festival as “Happy Days” from 15.12.2019 to 15.01.2020. 3. This Court found that what is proposed to be conducted in the place and for which permission was sought, is the valedictory function. In addition to the same, classical dance performance by a Film Artist was also planned. 4. This Court held that while considering such application, no permission can be granted to conduct any program which is not permissible in terms of Ext.P1 judgment. Even when permission is granted by the Cochin Devaswom Board to perform any cultural program in connection with the valedictory functions of the Night Shopping Festival, such functions can be permitted to be performed only in the three places specifically mentioned in Ext.P1. This Court held that the Cochin Devaswom Board and Thrissur Municipal Corporation should ensure that no COC. No.327/2021 : 4 : indecent performances or other programs which would be against the sentiments of Hindus and also the culture of the State shall be permitted to be staged in those places. 5. This Court further directed that the Cochin Devaswom Board should depute a competent officer who shall file a report before the Court as to whether any such objectionable items were performed as part of such programs. This Court, taking note of the observations made in Ext.P1 judgment, held that the Board will be free to consider Ext.R6(b) application submitted by the 6[th] respondent. 6. In his contempt of court case, the petitioner alleged that permissions were granted to agencies and political organisations to conduct their political programs including Dharna as well as other exhibition of automotives, bike racing, etc. violating the sanctity of Vadakkumnatha Kshethra Maidanam. The petitioner alleged that the Municipal Corporation had already approached the Devaswm Board to grant permission to construct public toilets inside COC. No.327/2021 : 5 : ## the Vadakkumnatha Kshethra Maidanam. 7. The petitioner submitted that stray cows, who ate plastic bottles thrown as garbage by trespassers, were found dead in different places of Vadakkumnatha Kshethra Maidanam. The petitioner produced Annexures-A2 and A3 photographs / news item in support of the contempt case. 8. The 1[st] respondent in the contempt case, who is the Special Commissioner of Cochin Devaswom Board, filed an affidavit in opposition. The 1[st] respondent contended that permission for programs was granted strictly in terms of the directions contained in Annexure-R1(A) judgment. 9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out the judgment of this Court dated 11.04.2023 in _**K.B.Sumodh v. Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board and others [2023:KER:25530]**_ , in which one among us, Anil K. Narendran, J., was a party. Paragraphs 31 to 51 of that judgment read thus: “31. As already noticed hereinbefore, Vadakkumnatha Kshethra Maidan (Thekkinkadu Maidan) is a Devaswom land, which is managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board as a trustee in management of Devaswom COC. No.327/2021 : 6 : property, in terms of the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. Therefore, there cannot be any activity in Thekkinkadu Maidan, except in accordance with the objects of the trust. 32. By the order dated 08.07.2013, DBP No.48 of 2010 initiated based on CDB Report No.125 of 2010 of the learned Ombudsman, was disposed of, making the interim order dated 08.06.2011 in that DBP absolute. The said interim order dated 08.06.2011, which was extracted in paragraph 2 of the order dated 08.07.2013 in DBP No.48 of 2010, has already been extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 22. In terms of the said order, there shall be no construction, beautification or other activities in the Thekkinkadu Maidan by the Government or the Corporation of Thrissur or any other authority without obtaining specific orders from this Court. It was further directed that there shall be no construction activity by the Cochin Devaswom Board in the Thekkinkadu Maidan without obtaining specific orders from this Court. It was made clear that, this inhibition will not cover such temporary structures which are necessary in connection with Pooram, festivals, rituals, exhibitions, etc. In the order dated 08.07.2013 in DBP No.48 of 2010, this Court has made absolute, the prohibition contained in the interim order dated 08.06.2011 that there are no hoardings and advertisement board inside Thekkindkadu Maidan. The Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board, was directed to ensure that the entire Thekkinkadu Maidan is kept plastic-free and the Secretary, Thrissur Municipal Corporation was directed to ensure that the environment safety level - is maintained in connection with plastic and non biodegradable and also biodegradable substances, insofar as Thekkinkadu Maidan is concerned. In the order dated 08.06.2011, this Court directed that no other programmes except those permitted will be undertaken without specific orders of this Court. The said order was made absolute in the order dated 08.07.2013 in DBP No.48 of 2010, wherein it was ordered that all the directions will remain as such for future application. COC. No.327/2021 : 7 : 33. DBP No.78 of 2013 was registered based on CDB Report No.81 of 2013 of the learned Ombudsman in Petition No.23 of 2013 filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board seeking permission to use Thekkinkadu Maidan for commercial purposes like conducting exhibitions, etc. In the order dated 30.09.2013, the Division Bench noticed that, apart from seeking permission as aforesaid, permission was also sought for allowing political parties to conduct meetings, etc., in Thekkinkadu Maidan. The Division Bench found that, the view taken in paragraph 3 of the order dated 08.07.2013 in DBP No.48 of 2010 is that only restricted activities can be permitted in Thekkinkadu Maidan apart from using it in connection with Thrissur Pooram Festival. Therefore, in the order dated 30.09.2013 in DBP No.78 of 2013, the Division Bench took a view that, if any other unrestricted activities are permitted, it will have an adverse impact on the property which is one of the important locations as far as the entire town is concerned. Therefore, the order passed in DBP No.48 of 2010 will take care of all matters which may arise in future. In the said order, the Division Bench clarified that, whenever fresh applications or proposals are received from interested parties, the Cochin Devaswom Board will place the matter before this Court for consideration and only after sanction by this Court any such activities can be permitted. 34. In view of the orders referred to hereinbefore, any activity other than those permitted in terms of those orders, can be permitted in Thekkinkadu Maidan, which is a Devaswom land, which is managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board as a trustee in management of Devaswom property can be permitted only after sanction by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. 35. The photographs placed on record as Ext.P8 series in W.P.(C)No.26499 of 2018 would show that the directions contained in the order dated 08.07.2013 in DBP No.48 of 2010 that the entire Thekkinkadu Maidan is kept plastic-free and that, the environment safety level is maintained in Thekkinkadu Maidan, in connection with plastic and COC. No.327/2021 : 8 : non-biodegradable and also biodegradable substances, are being openly flouted by the Cochin Devaswom Board and also the Thrissur Municipal Corporation. The photographs placed on record as Exts.P4 and P5 in W.P.(C)No.4617 of 2022 would show that hoardings, advertisement boards and flags of political parties are erected inside Thekkinkadu Maidan, openly flouting the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 08.07.2013 in DBP No.48 of 2010. It is for the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 08.07.2013, while maintaining Thekkinkadu Maidan, which is a Devaswom land, which is being managed by the Board as a trustee in management of Devaswom properties. No hoardings, advertisement boards or flags of political parties shall be erected inside Thekkinkadu Maidan. Musical concerts by Rock Bands, similar to that conducted on 31.12.2022, as ‘new year event’ in connection with Thrissur shopping festival of Thrissur Municipal Corporation and Thrissur Chamber of Commerce, as evidenced by Ext.P10(a) photographs and Ext.P10(b) to P10(d) videographs cannot be permitted in Thekkinkadu Maidan. It is ordered accordingly. 36. The photographs placed on record as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.4617 of 2022 are regarding erection of hoardings and advertisement boards of Pulimoottil Silks and Kalyan Silks, by the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple, in connection with Sivarathri festival. On 15.02.2022, this Court recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board that the law laid down in the decision of this Court in **Satheesh [2022 (1) KLT 940]** has already been brought to the notice of the Board. On 30.03.2022, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the hoardings and advertisement boards in Ext.P4 photographs have already been removed and that the question of issuing a general circular applicable to all temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board, in view of the law laid down by COC. No.327/2021 : 9 : this Court in the aforesaid decision is pending consideration before the Board. 37. In **C.S.S. Motor Service v. Madras State [AIR 1953 Madras 279]** a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that all public streets and roads vest in the State, but that the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public. The members of the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of right and this right is limited only by the similar rights possessed by every other citizen to use the pathways. The State as trustees on behalf of the public is entitled to impose all such limitations on the character and extent of the user as may be requisite for protecting the rights of the public generally. 38. In **Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court agreed with the statement of law made by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Para.24 of the decision in **C.S.S. Motor Service [AIR 1953 Madras 279]** . 39. In **Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [(1989) 4 SCC 155]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that the primary object of building roads is undoubtedly to facilitate people to travel from one point to another. 40. In **Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2021/KER/46194 : 2021 SCC OnLine Ker. 13182]** - order dated 16/11/2021 in SSCR No.9 of 2021 - a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, noticed that despite the enactment of the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act, 2011 by the State Legislature, the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Union of India v. State of Gujarat** [orders in SLP(Civil)No.8519 of 2006] and the law laid down by this Court in **Centre for Consumer Education v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KHC 957]** , **Shani Johnson v. Kochi Corporation [2019 (3) KHC 928]** , **Shali v. State of Kerala [2019 (5) KHC 118]** , **Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri. Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [2019 (5) KHC SN 27 :** COC. No.327/2021 : 10 : **2019/KER/48273]** , **Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala [2020 (6) KHC 373]** , the State of Kerala and the law enforcement machinery have not taken necessary steps to ensure strict enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions and also the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by Indian Roads congress (IRC:103-2012), in order to prevent encroachment of any nature, in any form, either temporary or permanent, on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities on public roads, since any such encroachment will adversely affect the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. 41. In **Suo Motu [2021/KER/46194 : 2021 SCC OnLine Ker. 13182]** this Court directed respondents 2 to 4 in SSCR No.9 of 2021 to take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in the decision referred to supra by all concerned, in letter and spirit, by maintaining the roads and pedestrian facilities in the State strictly in conformity with the relevant standards and guidelines, without any encroachment whatsoever on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines, in order to ensure the safety of most vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and the differently-abled persons. 42. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 08.06.2021 in W.P. (C)No.11886 of 2021 - **Trivandrum Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Kerala and others** - in which one among us (Anil K. Narendran, J.) was a party, whereby the State of Kerala was directed to file a counter affidavit explaining the steps already taken to ensure strict enforcement of the orders of the Apex Court, including the order dated 18.01.2013 in SLP(C)No.8519 of 2006, the decision of this Court in **Shivaprasad [2020 (6) KHC 373]** , etc., the relevant statutory provisions and also the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by Indian Roads Congress (IRC:103-2012), in order to prevent encroachment of any nature, in any form, either COC. No.327/2021 : 11 : temporary or permanent, on the right of way or pedestrian facilities on public road, the 1[st] respondent therein has issued a Circular dated 16.08.2021, whereby the Director of Urban Affairs and the Director of Panchayats are directed not to grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places, except for installation of high mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for the development and beautification of streets, roads, highways, etc. and relating to public utility and facilities in connection with the direction of the Apex Court. The Director Urban Affairs and the Director of Panchayats are directed to instruct Local Self Government Institutions accordingly and shall regularly monitor removal of unauthorized constructions from the roads as per the provisions in the respective Statutes in compliance with the directions contained in the orders referred to therein. 43. In **Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (7) KHC 185]** a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, held that, once roads are constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress, it has to be maintained as such without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. Footpaths are not intended for stocking articles for trade or for the display of goods by traders, in front of their shops or establishments. Similarly, footpaths are not intended for the purpose of holding campaigns, demonstrations, etc., by political parties and other organisations, by causing any obstruction whatsoever to the free movement of pedestrians. No political party or organisation can be permitted to encroach upon footpaths or right of way of public roads, in connection with any such protest, demonstrations, etc.; by erecting any temporary structures on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities, forcing pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility to walk in unsafe circumstances. Showing scant regard to the law laid COC. No.327/2021 : 12 : down in the decisions referred to _supra_ , political parties and various organisations are permitted to put up structures on footpaths and even on the right of way on public roads, all over the State. The protesters/ agitators having political backing are even permitted to lay carpet and place chairs on the footpath. On account of such encroachments, pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility are forced to walk through the right of way of public roads, in unsafe circumstances. In view of the provisions under clause (4) of Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, the driver and the riders shall take special care and precautions to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and the differently-abled persons. As per sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on footpaths, cycle paths and pedestrian crossings. 44. Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inserted by Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from 01.09.2019, vide S.O. 3147(E) dated 30.08.2019, deals with failure to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance. As per sub-section (1) of section 198A, any designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible for the design or construction or maintenance of the safety standards of the road shall follow such design, construction and maintenance standards, as may be prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. As per sub-section (2), where failure on the part of the designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible under subsection (1) to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance, results in death or disability, such authority or contractor or concessionaire shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs. 1,00,000/- and the same shall be paid to the Fund constituted under Section 164B. 45. As per sub-section (3) of Section 198A, for the purposes of sub-section (2), the court shall in particular have regard to the matters enumerated in COC. No.327/2021 : 13 : clauses (a) to (g), namely, (a) the characteristics of the road, and the nature and type of traffic which was reasonably expected to use it as per the design of road; (b) the standard of maintenance norms applicable for a road of that character and use by such traffic; (c) the state of repair in which road users would have expected to find the road; (d) whether the designated authority responsible for the maintenance of the road knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the road to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to the road users; (e) whether the designated authority responsible for the maintenance of the road could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the road before the cause of action arose; (f) whether adequate warning notices through road signs, of its condition had been displayed; and (g) such other matters as may be prescribed by the Central Government. As per Explanation, for the purposes of Section 198A, the term ‘contractor’ shall include subcontractors and all such persons who are responsible for any stage in the design, construction and maintenance of a stretch of road. 46. In **Satheesh [2022 (1) KLT 940]** this Court held that, once roads are constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress, it has to be maintained as such without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. Footpaths are not intended for stocking articles for trade or for display of goods by traders, in front of their shops or establishments. Similarly, footpaths are not intended for holding campaigns, demonstrations, etc., by political parties and other organisations, by causing obstructions to free movement of pedestrians. No political party or organisation can be permitted to encroach footpath or right of way of public roads, in connection with any such protest, demonstrations, etc., by erecting any temporary structures on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities, forcing COC. No.327/2021 : 14 : pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility to walk in unsafe circumstances. 47. In **Satheesh [2022 (1) KLT 940]** this Court noticed that, showing scant regard to the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, political parties and various organisations are permitted to put up structures on footpaths and even on the right of way on public roads, all over the State. The protesters/agitators having political backing are even permitted to lay carpet and place chairs on the footpath. On account of such encroachments, pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility are forced to walk through the right of way of public roads, in unsafe circumstances. The prohibition imposed by the Apex Court in the decision in **Union of India v. State of Gujarat** [SLP(Civil) No. 8519 of 2006], whereby the Government of Kerala is restrained, with effect from 18.01.2013, from granting any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places, is being flouted by permitting unauthorised hoardings, structures like resting places for headload workers, bus shelters constructed by political and other organisations, etc., on public roads, pavements, footpaths, etc. Such encroachments are even permitted in front of the Office of the Local Self Government Institutions. The law laid down by this Court in **Shali [2019 (5) KHC 118]** , **Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri. Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee [2019 (5) KHC SN 27]** and **Sivaprasad [2020 (6) KHC 373]** that every Local Authority in the State is bound to provide pedestrian facilities on public roads in conformity with the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities [IRC:103-2012] and that, once the National Highways/State Highways are constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress, it has to be maintained as such without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines is also being flouted by COC. No.327/2021 : 15 : permitting encroachments on the right of way and on the pedestrian facilities. 48. In view of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and the law laid down in the decision referred to _supra_ , the roads constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress has to be maintained as such, without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. No political party, organisation or trader can be permitted to encroach upon footpaths or right of way of public roads, in connection with any protests, demonstrations or trade, by erecting any temporary structures on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities or by stocking articles for trade forcing pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility to walk in unsafe circumstances. 49. In view of the law laid down by this Court in **Satheesh [2022 (1) KLT 940]** the roads constructed as per the specifications and standards prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress are for vehicular traffic, which cannot be converted as a parking space for commercial or other establishments, religious institutions, etc., or even for putting up temporary structures in connection with festivals in temples, churches, mosque, etc., or for putting up temporary structures as resting place for headload workers, etc., or for putting up bus shelters by political parties or by any other organisations. 50. Since the State holds public roads as a trustee on behalf of the public, the inaction on the part of the State and the Local Self Government Institutions in preventing such encroachments upon footpaths or right of way of public roads will amount to breach of trust. Any failure on the part of the designated authorities, contractor, consultant or concessionaire in maintaining the safety standards of public roads will attract the penal consequences provided under Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 51. The Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials shall ensure strict compliance of the law laid down by this Court in **Satheesh [2022 (1) KLT 940]** in COC. No.327/2021 : 16 : respect of all temples under its management, by ensuring that no hoardings, advertisement boards, etc., or any temporary structures are erected on the right of way or pedestrian facilities of public roads around the premises of the temples under its management, in connection with annual festival and other religious ceremonies. The additional 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.26499 of 2018, i.e., the Secretary of Thrissur Municipal Corporation shall ensure strict compliance of the law laid down by this Court in **Satheesh [2022 (1) KLT 940]** by ensuring that no hoardings, advertisement boards, etc., or any temporary structures are erected on the right of way or pedestrian facilities of public roads within the area of Thrissur Municipal Corporation, forcing pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility to walk in unsafe circumstances.” In such circumstances, this Contempt of Court Case is closed in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent and taking note of the directions contained in the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in _**K.B. Sumodh v. Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board and others**_ **[2023:KER:25530].** Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks COC. No.327/2021 : 17 : ## **APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 327/2021** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE R1 A True copy of judgment dated 28.3.2003 in O.P. No. 8521 of 2003 passed by this Honourable Court.** **ANNEXURE R1 B True copy of order dated 02/12/2019 in DBP No. 78 of 2019 passed by this Honourable Court.** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A1** **ANNEXURE A2** **ANNEXURE A3** **ANNEXURE A4** **THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.33168/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PERMISSION GIVEN FOR DIFFERENT POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE CONDUCT THEIR POLITICAL PROGRAMS, DHARNAS, EXHIBITION OF AUTOMOTIVES, BIKE RACING/DEMONSTRATIONS.** **THE NEWS ITEM CAME IN JANMABHOOMI DAILY DATED 2.6.2020** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE STAY COWS WHO ATE PLASTIC BOTTLE AND OTHER RELATED HARD MATERIALS THROWN AS GARBAGES BY THE TRESPASSERS FOUND DIED IN DIFFERENT PLACES OF VADAKKUMNTHA KSHETRA MAITHANAM.**