Kuttan Gopalan and others v Union of India and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2019/15TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **W.P(C).No.24438 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 KUTTAN GOPALAN AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, CONVENOR, WARRIAM COLONY ADIVASI PUNARADHIVASA SAMITHI, PANTHAPRA TRIBAL COLONY, KUTTAMPUZHA POST OFFICE, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **2 BABU** **AGED 36, S/O.AYYAPPAN, PANTHAPRA TRIBAL COLONY, KUTTAMPUZHA POST OFFICE, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SMT.SURYA BINOY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FORESTS, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, REGIONAL OFFICE,(SOUTHERN ZONE), KENDRIYA SADAN, IVTH FLOOR, E & F WINGS, MAIN ROAD, III BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560034.** - **2 DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS REGIONAL OFFICE,(SOUTHERN ZONE), KENDRIYA SADAN, IVTH FLOOR, E & F WINGS,MAIN ROAD, III BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560034.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND WILDLIFE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **4 PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WP & R), FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** **5 SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110011.** **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 2 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** |**6**|**SECRETARY**| |---|---| ||**SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**7**|**DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER**| ||**MALAYATTOOR DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE,**| ||**FOREST OFFICE RD, KODANAD-683544.**| ||**BY SHRI.K.A.BALAN, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL**| ||**SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA**| ||**SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FOREST)**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.03.2019 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.24563/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 3 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2019/15TH PHALGUNA, 1940** **W.P(C).No.24563 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** **SHAJI PAYYANIKKAL AGED 44 YEARS, GENERAL SECRETARY, HINDU AIKYA VEDHI, PANCHAYATH SAMITHY, KUTTAMPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.H.KIRAN SRI.K.R.RANJITH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE DIRECTOR (FOREST CONSERVATION)**| |---|---| ||**MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST & CLIMATE CHARGE,**| ||**(FOREST CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT),**| ||**INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, ALIGANJ,**| ||**JOR BHAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI 110003.**| |**2**|**THE STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,**| ||**SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**3**|**SCHEDULE TRIBE DEPARTMENT**| ||**REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,**| ||**THE SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**4**|**ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY**| ||**FOREST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**5**|**THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HEAD**| ||**OF FOREST FORCES, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS,**| ||**VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.**| **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 4 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** - **6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.** - **7 THE TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.** **8 THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUTTAMPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUTTAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KUTTAMPUZHA-686681.** **BY SHRI.K.A.BALAN, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA BY SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FOREST) BY ADVS.SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SMT.P.F.ROSY SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.03.2019 ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO.24438/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 5 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** **HRISHIKESH ROY, C.J. & A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------W.P.(C).NO.24438 OF 2018 & W.P.(C).NO.24563 OF 2015 ----------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2019 J U D G M E N T** ## **A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.** As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P. (C).No.24438/2018. 2. The petitioners are members of the Mannan Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community in the State of Kerala. It is their case that about 218 families, belonging to both the Muthuvan and Mannan Communities [both Scheduled Tribe Communities in the State of Kerala], were occupying an area in the Malayattoor Division of the reserved forest, commonly referred to as the “Warriam Settlement Area”. It is stated that the said Settlement area comprises of approximately 938 acres of reserved forest, and on account of increasing conflict with wild animals, continued living in the said forest area, where they had been residing through various generations, became impossible for the **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 6 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** Tribal Community. The members of the Settlement therefore approached the Government, voicing their concerns and the State Government assured them that, on surrender of the 938 acres where they were settled, they would be rehabilitated at Pooyamkutty and Kandanpara, as is evident from Ext.P1 Government Order dated 1.2.2014. The place identified for their re-settlement comprises an extent of 523 acres [209.20 hectares] of teak plantation near Urulanthanny in Malayattoor Forest Division itself. Ext.P1 G.O. also indicates that the Government had, after examining the case of the forest dwellers, decided to forward the proposal for their re-settlement to the Central Ministry of Environment and Forests, inter alia, for exemption from the requirement of paying the Net Present Value and bearing the cost of Compensatory Afforestation in lieu of diversion of the aforesaid 523 acres of forest land for the rehabilitation of the traditional forest dwellers. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, pursuant to Ext.P1 order, 66 families left their forest habitat in the Warriam Settlement area and shifted to Kandanpara. The Re-settlement Plan, however, did not fructify on account of a stalemate resulting from the inaction of the Central Government in granting the necessary permission for re-settlement. This led to W.P.(C).No.6824/2010 being filed before this court on behalf of the forest dwellers, which was disposed by Ext.P2 judgment dated 20.6.2014. In the said judgment, a learned Single Judge took note of the submissions put forward by the Kerala State **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 7 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** Legal Services Authority to find that, as per the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as the “2006 Act”], forest rights were to be conferred on the forest dwellers, free of the requirement of paying the Net Present Value and cost of Compensatory afforestation. It was, in particular, noted that the area where the Tribals were to be rehabilitated was a teak-elavu plantation, and inasmuch as these plantations were being maintained as such for a large number of years, they could not be treated as pukka forest land. It was also noted that there was no loss of forest land as the Tribals were surrendering close to 939 acres of thick forest land as part of the re-settlement exercise. The learned Judge opined therefore that, since the area surrendered by the Tribals was forest area, there was no need for any compensatory afforestation. The learned Judge thereafter examined the rehabilitation package, and found that apart from the 2 acres of land allocated to each Tribal family in recognition of their forest rights, 87 acres of land had been set apart for infrastructure development, and that the re-settlement proposals in the instant case were not against the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, in that, the area where the Tribal people were to be re-settled was not a pukka forest but a teak-elavu plantation, which was recognised in the working plan approved by the Central Government. The writ petition was accordingly disposed with the following directions: **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 8 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** - “(a) It is hereby declared that this is not a case where there is any question of Net Present Value or cost of compensatory afforestation is involved. - (b) The 3[rd] respondent is directed to render all assistance to the 1[st] respondent to rehabilitate the tribals, to which the petitioners belong, if necessary, by including them in the next working plan of the area, in furtherance of modification of their forest rights. - (c) As the working plan of the area (Malayattoor forest division) in which the Urulanthanny teak plantation is situated is being revised, earnest efforts shall be made by both Governments to see that the grievance of the petitioners are redressed during the next plan itself by complying with the aforesaid direction.” 4. It is relevant to note that in the writ petition which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment, both the State Government as also the Central Government in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs were parties. There were also no appeal preferred either by the State Government or by the Central Government against Ext.P2 judgment, and therefore, the directions in the said judgment have become final and binding on the said parties. It would appear that, pursuant to the directions in the judgment aforementioned, the State Government had submitted a working plan for the Malayattoor Division for the period from 2015-16 to 2024-25 [Ext.P6(a)]. It is not in dispute that Ext.P6(a) working plan obtained the approval of the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change [Ext.P6]. The approval to the working plan was after consideration of the aspect of re-settlement of the Tribals from the Warriam Tribal Settlement in the Kuttampuzha range area, which was the subject matter of W.P.(C).No.6824/2010, that was disposed by Ext.P2 judgment. After obtaining the approval to the working plan, and **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 9 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** thereby to the proposal for re-settlement of the forest dwellers, an addendum was submitted by the State Government to the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, so as to furnish the details of the Tribal families that had to be re-settled as also the trees that had to be felled for the purposes of giving effect to the re-settlement proposal. The Exts.P7 and P8 produced along with the writ petition give details of the addendum referred to above. It would appear that, in response to the said communication by the State Government, the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change issued Ext.P9 communication which referred to the working plan for the Malayattoor Forest Division for the period 2015-16 to 2024-25, and highlighted condition Nos.4 and 5 with regard to compliance with the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [hereinafter referred to as the “1980 Act”], and noted that rehabilitation of Tribals living inside the forests to the periphery of the forest, requires prior approval of the Central Government under the 1980 Act. The State Government was therefore requested to take necessary action as per the 1980 Act, inasmuch as the matter related to re-settlement of tribals in forest land. The said communication [Ext.P9] is impugned in the writ petition, where the contention of the petitioners is essentially that, in the light of the positive directions given by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, it was not open to the Central Government to now insist on a further permission for giving effect to the rehabilitation proposals that were already included in the working plan **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 10 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** that was approved by the Central Government, pursuant to the directions in Ext.P2 judgment. 5. Statements have been filed on behalf of the State Government and the Central Government. In the statement filed on behalf of the Central Government, reference is made to the provisions of the 1980 Act, as also the order passed by the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C).No.202 of 1995] to suggest that any proposal for re-settlement of forest dwellers by the State Government must be preceded by a prior permission from the Central Government. The condition in Ext.P6 communication that “No non forestry activity shall be taken up in a forest area in violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and that the provisions of the said Act and guidelines issued thereunder have to be strictly adhered to while implementing the approved working plan”, are reiterated as mandatory conditions to be observed by the State Government while implementing the re-settlement proposal. In the statement filed on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent State Government, details of the re-settlement proposal are reiterated, and it is stated that the forest rights in respect of the dwellers in Warriam Settlement were recognised through the procedure contemplated in Section 6 of the 2006 Act. Details of the deliberations before the District Collector, Ernakulam, the State Level Monitoring Committee, the Scheduled Tribe Development Department etc. are also furnished so as to **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 11 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** establish compliance with the statutory provisions under Section 6 of the 2006 Act. It is the submission of the learned Government Pleader Sri.Sandesh Raja appearing on behalf of the State Government that, inasmuch as the re-settlement of the forest dwellers of Warriam Settlement tantamounts to a recognition of their forest rights under the 2006 Act, they would be exempted from the requirement of paying the Net Present Value and Compensatory afforestation for diversion of forest land in terms of Section 4(7) of the 2006 Act. 6. We have heard Smt.Surya Binoy, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 , Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24563/2015, Sri.P.Vijayakumar, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as also Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) for the State of Kerala. 7. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, we find that the proposal for re-settlement of the forest dwellers belonging to the Muthuvan and Mannan Communities, who are recognised as Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala, was mooted by the State Government as early as in 2014, as evident from Ext.P1 G.O. The proposal envisaged a re-settlement of the said forest dwellers in an extent of 523 acres of land comprising of teak/softwood plantation in **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 12 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** Urulanthanny in Malayattoor Forest Division. When there was a delay in the implementation of the said proposal, in the hands of the State Government and the Central Government, the forest dwellers approached this Court through W.P. (C).No.6824/2010, which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, recognising the settlement proposal of the State Government as a right accruing to the forest dwellers in terms of the 2006 Act, and directing the State and Central Governments to take expeditious step to implement the proposal. The directions issued in Ext.P2 judgment also suggest that, although the area where the forest dwellers were to be re-settled was categorized as 'forest land', for the purposes of the 1980 Act, the nature of the land was such that it was not pukka forest land, but was in the nature of teak plantation on forest land. It was under these circumstances that it was felt that there was no necessity to insist on compensatory afforestation while re-settling the forest dwellers from the Warriam Settlement area which, admittedly, was a dense forest area where deforestation had not occurred. The State Government and the Central Government, having been parties to the said writ petition, and Ext.P2 judgment of the learned Single Judge having become final on account of there being no appeal preferred against it, we have to proceed on the basis that the right of the forest dwellers to be re-settled in the 523 acres of land identified in Urulanthanny in Malayattoor Forest Division has already been established through Ext.P2 judgment. Further, the State and the Central Governments, that were directed to work out the modalities for the purposes of recognising these **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 13 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** rights, have since prepared and approved the working plan for the Malayattoor Division for 2015-16 to 2024-25. It is also significant to note that while approving the working plan through Ext.P6 communication dated 18.2.2016, the proposal for re-settlement, which was incorporated in the working plan, was also approved by the Central Government. The addendum to the working plan for rehabilitation of the Tribal families was furnished by the State Government solely for the purposes of informing the Central Government of the detailed proposals regarding felling of trees and the extent of land that was to be allotted to each of the Tribal family as part of the re-settlement scheme. The said communication had to be seen merely as an intimation by the State Government, of the details of the re-settlement plan which formed part of the working plan that had already been approved by the Central Government. Viewed thus, we find that the directions in Ext.P9 communication of the Central Government dated 15.3.2018 were unwarranted, in that, there was no further requirement for any clearance from the Central Government, when the actions taken by the State Government were only consequent to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. The Central Government having been a party to the said writ petition, could not have taken a stand contrary to the said directions which were issued for the purposes of implementing the re-settlement proposal. The suggestions in Ext.P9 communication cannot be legally sustained and hence we deem it appropriate to quash Ext.P9 communication. **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 14 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** 8. We might hasten to add that we are aware that the 1980 Act mandates that a non-forest activity cannot be carried out in a forest area. We feel, however, that when a re-settlement of forest dwellers is proposed by the State Government, it has to be seen as a recognition of, and an act in furtherance of, the rights flowing to them from the 2006 Act, and cannot be viewed as a non-forest activity for the purposes of the 1980 Act. This is especially so, in the instant case, because, the forest dwellers were originally settled within a dense forest area, which came to be known as “Warriam Settlement”, and the re-settlement proposed is essentially one that takes them out of the dense forest area and settles them in alternate area identified within the forest division where there is currently a teak-elavu plantation in existence. The object of preserving forest lands, as envisaged in the 1980 Act, would not, in our view, be defeated through the re-settlement proposal that is underway in respect of the forest dwellers in the instant case. Accordingly, we dispose these writ petitions by directing the State Government to proceed with the proposals indicated in Ext.P8 proposal, drawn up in connection with the working plan for the period 2015-16 to 2024-25, by felling the trees in the 15 cent plots already identified by them for construction of houses and allied structures for the families to be re-settled. We note from Ext.P8 proposal that 1836 trees including 786 teak trees are to be removed for the purpose, and this, we permit the State Government to carry out expeditiously, and at any rate, within six **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 15 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, for the purposes of implementing the re-settlement proposal. The Ext.P8 report also talks about the balance trees including 9020 teak trees in the plantation, and in respect of these trees, we are of the view that the State Government should consider the felling of such trees only after first ascertaining the nature of activities proposed to be carried out by the re-settled forest dwellers in the areas allocated to each of them. In the event of further felling of trees being found necessary, then an intimation of the said fact shall be given to the Central Government, and the felling of such trees shall be carried out only after obtaining the necessary permission from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. It is made clear that on the receipt of any such intimation from the State Government, the Central Government shall take a decision on the same, expeditiously, and at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the intimation from the State Government, by taking note of the observations in Ext.P2 judgment, as also this judgment. The Writ Petitions are disposed as above. **Sd/HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** prp/7/3/19 **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 16 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** ## **APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).NO.24438/2018** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.06/14/F & WLD DATED 01.02.2014.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2014 IN WP(C) NO.6824 OF 2010.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.11.2015 IN WP(C) NO.24563/2015.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER APPROVING THE DECISION OF STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE.** - **EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11.08.2009 CONVENED BY THE THEN MINISTER FOR FORESTS.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.02.2016 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE WORKING PLAN MENTIONING THE SETTLEMENT OF VARRIAM TRIBAL SETTLEMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE WORKING PLAN.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2018.** **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 17 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** **EXHIBIT P10** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.02.1993 ADDRESSED BY THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS TO THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, WORKING PLAN AND RESEARCH CIRCLE.** **EXHIBIT P11** **TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE COLONY LIVE.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE R3(A)** **TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.5294/C2/2013/F&WLD DT. 10.02.2014.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **W.P.(C).No.24438/2018 & : 18 : W.P.(C).No.24536/2015** ## **APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).NO.24563/2015** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.06/14/F&WLD DATED 01.02.2014.** **EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.NO.8-44/2014-FP DATED 20.1.2015.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE**