Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust v. National Council for Teacher Education and Others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 6[TH]DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, DR.K.M. MEHBOOB, CHATHAMANGALAM, N.I.T.C. (P.O.), KOZHIKODE 673 601. BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN SRI.ALEX ABRAHAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, G-7, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI110075. 2SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, G-7, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI110075. 3THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. KOZHIKODE 673 635. 4STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. ``` ``` DR ABRAHAM P MEACHINKARA SC SRI PC SASIDHARAN SC SMT NISHA BOSE SR LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON06.12.2021,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust is registered as an educational and charitable Trust. The KMCT College of Teacher Education (‘College’ for short) is an educational institution established by the Trust and the College has been granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for starting a Secondary course of one-year duration from the academic session 2004-2005 with an annual intake of 100 students. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the decision taken by the Southern Regional Committee (SRC) of the NCTE to withdraw the recognition granted to the institution. 3. Brief facts necessary to be stated for deciding the issues involved are as under: The petitioner contends that while the institution was conducting B.Ed. course on the strength of Ext.P1 recognition granted in the academic year 2004-2005, the 1st respondent came out with the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Ext.P2 recognition order was issued to the petitioner as they had complied with all the requirements. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents mentioned therein. It is contended that on ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner issued Ext.P4 reply pointing out that all the documents had been submitted on 30.10.2015 and the details of the documents so submitted were also mentioned. The petitioner contends that Ext.P5 affidavit was also sworn to by the Managing Trustee furnishing the details with regard to ownership of the property. Without adverting to Ext.P4 reply, the 2nd respondent is stated to have issued Ext.P6 final show-cause notice. The petitioner contends that they responded to Ext.P6 but without affording an opportunity of being heard, the 2nd respondent arbitrarily withdrew the recognition granted to the institution. The petitioner asserts that the withdrawal was not communicated to the petitioner. However, since it was uploaded to the website, the petitioner was able to download a copy of the same. The petitioner contends that Ext.P3 show cause notice, Ext.P6 final show-cause notice and Ext.P7 order of withdrawal cannot be sustained under law. It is contended that despite the submission of the entire records, the 2nd respondent proceeded to withdraw the recognition without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that based on Ext.P7 order of withdrawal, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P15 order as per which, the recognition granted to KMCT college of Education for conducting B.Ed and D.Ed courses for the academic year 2021-2022, was withdrawn. It is further stated that later Ext.P16 notice was served on the petitioner stating that the 2nd respondent has withdrawn the recognition granted to ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` KMCT College of Education for conducting D.El.Ed for the academic year 2021-2022 onwards. According to the petitioner, the order withdrawing recognition of D.El.Ed course is palpably erroneous as no such course is being conducted by the institution. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Exts.P3, P6, P7 and P15 and for a further direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to hear the petitioner on the deficiencies noted in Ext.P7 minutes. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the petitioner’s College is eligible to make admissions in the academic year 2021-2022 and to get allotment of students. 4. A statement has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. It is contended that recognition was granted to the KMCT College of Education for conducting B.Ed course of one-year duration from the academic session 2004-2005 with an intake of 100 students. However, after the coming into force of 2014 Regulations, the NCTE has issued revised recognition vide Ext.P2 order dated 15.5.2015 for conducting B.Ed course of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students for two basic units of 50 students each from the academic year 2015-2016 subject to the institution fulfilling the conditions in the said order. It is stated that the SRC in its meeting held on 28.10.2019 decided to call for certain documents to ascertain as to whether the ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` petitioner has complied with the stipulations in the order of revised recognition. A show-cause notice was issued to which Ext.P4 reply was submitted by the petitioner. After considering the reply, the SRC decided to call for further clarification. It was in the said circumstances that Ext.P6 final show cause notice was issued. The reply was found to be unsatisfactory as several deficiencies were noted. Though opportunities were provided to the petitioner, they failed to make available the documents to substantiate that the defects noted have been cleared. It was in the said circumstances that an order was passed withdrawing the recognition. It is contended that no hearing prior to recognition of withdrawal order is contemplated and hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 5. An application to amend the Writ petition was filed which was allowed. The petitioner has incorporated additional pleadings and sought additional reliefs. 6. I have heard Sri. Arun Krishna Dhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Abraham Meachinkara, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents, Sri P.C. Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University of Calicut and the learned Government Pleader. ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` 7. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the order of withdrawal of recognition passed against the petitioner can be sustained under law. 8. It was with a view to achieve the object of planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith, that the Parliament had enacted the 1993 Act. The 1993 Act provides for the establishment of a Council to be called the National Council for Teacher Education with multifarious functions, powers and duties. 9. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the term “Council” to mean a Council established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 2(i) defines the term “recognised institution” to mean an institution recognised under Section 14. Section 2(j) defines the term “Regional Committee” to mean a committee established under Section 20. 10. Section 12 of the Act enumerates the functions of the Council and the same reads as follows: “12. Functions of the Council.—It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` and coordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may— - (a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof; - (b) make recommendations to the Central and State Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education; - (c) coordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country; - (d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in recognised institutions; - (e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; - (f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training, and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications; - (g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` examinations and schemes of courses or training; - (h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees chargeable by recognised institutions; - (i) promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teacher education and disseminate the results thereof; - (j) examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council, and to suitably advise the recognised institutions; - (k) evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions; - (l) formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes; - (m) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education; and - (n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government. 11. The NCTE Act grants authority to the council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 9 ``` maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under the Act, the Council may undertake surveys and studies, make recommendations to the Central and State Governments, Universities, UGC etc, coordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country, lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in recognised institutions, lay down norms for any specified category of courses or training in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum, lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications and such other matters as provided in Section 12. 12. Section 17 of the NCTE Act deals with the contravention of the provisions of the Act and the consequence thereof. The said provision reads as follows: 17. Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof.—(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 10 ``` granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution: Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. - (2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-section (1)— (a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and (b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information. - (3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 11 ``` - (4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government. 13. A close analysis of the provisions of Section 17 would show that where the Regional Committee, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, is satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1), no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution. As per the second proviso to sub-section (1), the ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 12 ``` order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. In view of the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 17, once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel the affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. 14. It is in the exercise of the power vested in it under Section 32 that the National Council for Teacher Education has, from time to time, framed the regulations. Initially, NCTE framed “the National Council for Teacher Education (Application for Recognition, the Manner for Submission, Determination of Conditions for Recognition of Institutions and Permissions to Start New Course or Training) Regulations, 1995”. In 2002, the NCTE framed “the National Council for Teacher Education (Form of Application for Recognition, the Time-Limit of Submission of Application, Determination of Norms and Standards for Recognition of Teacher Education Programmes and Permission to Start New Course or Training) Regulations, 2002”. Between 2003 and 2005, six amendments ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 13 ``` were made in the 2002 Regulations, which were finally repealed with the enactment of “the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 (for short “the 2005 Regulations”). Finally, by notification dated 28.11.2014, in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, (73 of 1993) and in supersession of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 was brought into force. 15. In the case on hand, it appears that after the coming into force of 2014 Regulations, the NCTE issued revised provisional recognition order on 15.5.2015 on the basis of an affidavit filed by the petitioner on 29.01.2015 that they are willing to adhere to the Regulations 2014. When the petitioner contends that they had submitted reply to the show cause notice and the final show cause notice and that their responses were not considered by the NCTE before passing the order of withdrawal, the NCTE contends that none of the defects pointed out were cleared. I find from Ext.P15 order of withdrawal that the deficiencies noted by the NCTE are the following: - (i) The institution has not submitted certified land documents and the institution has submitted notarized copy of the English version only. ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 14 ``` - (ii) The institution has submitted photocopy of Land Utilization Certificate instead of CLU. - (iii) The institution has submitted NEC in Regional Language. - (iv) The institution has submitted Building Plan in photocopy. The multipurpose hall not mentioned the building plan instead of multipurpose hall the building plan shown the seminar hall which is also less size 1030*665=698.52 sq. ft. which is also less size NCTE norms. The building plan not showing the separate toilet for PWD and institution campus building, furniture etc., are barrier free. - (v) The institution submitted Site plan not Approved by Competent Authority. - (vi) The institution has submitted Building completion Certificate but not in the prescribed format. - (vii) The institution has not submitted form “A” certificate and photocopy of FDRs submitted. - (viii) The institution has not submitted affidavit mentioned in SCN. - (ix) Faculty namely Seena T V is not qualified and possessing less than 55% marks in PG. - (x) The faculty namely Areefa P M is not qualified as not possessing NET/Ph.D. which is the mandatory requirement for faculty appointed after the date of notification of NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations, 2017 dated 29.05.2017. - (xi) Principal is not qualified as she does not possess Ph.D. - (xii) The faculties for Fine Arts and Performing Arts (Music/Dance/Theatre) are not appointed. - (xiii) The institution has also not provided details of faculty for D.El.Ed. programme, Endowment & Reserve Fund for D.El.Ed. Programme even after the institution was directed to submit through Show-Cause Notice. 16. When this matter had come up for hearing on 4.8.2021, this Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 15 ``` the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, had passed an order staying the operation of Ext.P15 and P16. Paragraph No.3 and 4 of the order is extracted below for easy reference. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued on 3.10.2019 calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents. The learned counsel would refer to Ext.P4 reply and it is pointed out that the petitioner had duly informed the Regional Director by providing details that the entire documents had been submitted on 30.10.2015. However, without adverting to any of these facts, Ext.P6 final show cause notice was issued. The learned counsel contends that in an arbitrary manner, the recognition granted to the KMCT College of Education was withdrawn. 4. The learned counsel would refer to paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition and it was argued that the reasons given for the withdrawal of recognition are clearly illegal and arbitrary. For instance, it is pointed out that one of the accusations levelled against the institution is that they had submitted the Land Use Certificate issued by the competent authority instead of the CLU which was ordered to be produced. The learned counsel points out that in Ext.P6 show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to produce the Land Use Certificate and it was the said document duly certified by the Tahsildar (LR), that was produced. As to what is a CLU is anybody’s guess. He would then highlight that another reason for withdrawal of recognition is that the institution had not submitted a non-encumbrance certificate in Regional Language. According to the learned counsel, nowhere in Ext.P6 show cause notice was the petitioner directed to produce the English translation of the encumbrance certificate. Another reason for withdrawal of recognition is that two of the faculty members, one of which was the Principal, did not possess NET/Ph.D. which is a mandatory requirement for appointment after the amendment regulations, 2017. The petitioner contends that the appointments ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 16 ``` are fully valid as the faculty had joined the institution in 2005 and 2017 respectively and only the faculty appointed after 9.6.2017 is required to have the requisite qualification as per NCTE Regulations, 2014 as amended by NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2017 as held by this Court in the judgment dated 7.10.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 19665/2020 and connected cases. Yet another reason for withdrawal of recognition is that the institution has not provided details of faculty for D.El.Ed. programme. It is pointed out that the above accusation clearly displays total non-application of mind as the KMCT College of Institution is not conducting any D.El.Ed. programme. The aforesaid order was passed after considering the entire facts. 17. I also find on a perusal of Ext.P15 and P16 orders that a serious error has been committed by the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the institution has been conducting B.Ed. courses after obtaining recognition from respondents 1 and 2. There is no case that the College run by the petitioner had been conducting Dl.Ed. course. A perusal of Ext.P16 order reveals that the order of withdrawal of recognition is from conducting Dl.Ed. Course from the next academic session. I have no doubt in my mind that Ext.P16 order has been passed without any application of mind and the same is liable to be quashed on that ground itself. Furthermore, as observed by this Court while passing the interim order, relevant aspects have not been taken note of by the respondents while withdrawing the recognition. Furthermore, in the statement filed before this Court, the respondents have admitted that before passing the impugned orders, the ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 17 ``` petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. In **Abdulla T.A. v. Supply Co and Others** [2020 (1) KLT 473], a Division Bench of this Court relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Uma Nath Pandey & Ors. V. State of U.P. & Anr.** [AIR 2009 (SC) 2375] had occasion to observe that irrespective of whether the opportunity of hearing is provided in a statute or not, the principles of natural justice demand that such opportunity is read into the statute. In the peculiar facts and circumstances and in view of the serious errors which have crept into the impugned orders, I am of the opinion that if an opportunity was granted, the petitioner would have been able to convince the respondents that they had in fact complied with the stipulations in the revised recognition order and that withdrawal of recognition was not warranted. 18. Having considered all the relevant facts, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the impugned orders. This writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) Ext.P16 will stand quashed. b) Exhibit P15 shall be treated as show-cause notice. The petitioner shall furnish the records and other details which are mentioned as deficiencies within a period of two weeks from today. The concerned respondents shall consider the same and pass fresh orders in accordance ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 18 ``` with law, within a further period of 45 days. c) Insofar as the faculty members are concerned, the respondents shall take note of the observations in judgment dated 7.10.2020 in W.P.(C) No.19665/2020 and connected cases that only the faculty members appointed after 9.6.2017 are required to have the requisite qualifications as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014 as amended by the NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Amendment Regulation, 2017. d) The respondents shall also take note of the fact the petitioner has appointed Smt. Sijina V.V., Assistant Professor on the subject ‘Finance’ on 09.07.2021 and the same has been approved by the University of Calicut. The petitioner may produce the records relating to the appointment of Smt. Sijina, before the respondents concerned. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. ## **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,** **JUDGE** avs ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 19 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9498/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT GRANTING RECOGNITION TO THE PETITIONERS COLLEGE. ``` - `EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOGNITION ORDER DATED 15.05.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS COLLEGE.` - `EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. F.SRC/NCTE/APSO0478/BED./KL/2018-9/11021 1DATD 03.10.2019.` ``` EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL, KMCT COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. (LONG WITH TYPED COPY). ``` - `EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28/11/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.` ``` EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE LETTER NO. F.NO.SRC/NCTE/APSO 0478/BED./KL/2020?120121 DATED 23.10.2020. ``` - `EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF DECISION TAKEN AT 397TH MEETING OF SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NCTE WITHDRAWING THE RECOGNITION TO KMCT COLLEGE OF EDUCATION HELD ON 25TH -26TH MARCH 2021.` - `EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED COPY OF THE JENMOM SALE DEED NO. 1736/2005 OF SRO CHATHAMANGALAM.` ``` EXHIBIT P9A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND UTILISATION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.01.2201 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR (L.R.), KOZHIKODE. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 9498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 20 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P10 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE DATED 23.11.2020. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P11A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN AND SKETCH OF THE COLLEGE. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P12A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY CHATHAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 20.04.2010. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P13A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02.01.2201 ISSUED BY UNION BANK. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P13 (A)A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 04.01.2201 ISSUED BY THE SBI. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P14A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2020 IN WPC NO. 19665/2020 AD CONNECTED CASES. ```