Lalu G.R. v. State of Kerala and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945 W.P.(C)NO.31159OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` LALU.G.R., AGED 31 YEARS S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, TC 464/2139, PANDIMUTTATHU VEEDU, LANKA NAGAR, THIRUVALLOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695027. BY ADVS. BIJU BALAKRISHNAN V.S.RAKHEE K.J.GISHA AJMAL P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.`** - **`2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.`** - **`3 DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, VIKAS BHAVAN, LAW COLLEGE ROAD, OPPOSITE KSRTC DEPOT, PALAYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695033,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.`** - **`4 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.`** - **`5 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695003.`** 2 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 - **`6 THE CHIEF VIGILANCE SECURITY OFFICER (SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - VIGILANCE), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.`** ``` 7 THE THIRUVITHAMCORE DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION, STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, V.V.DHAKSHINAMOORTHI BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADVS.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, who is a Hindu worshiper and a devotee, who is entitled to attend and in the habit of attending the performance of worship and service in various Hindu temples has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 10.08.2020 of the 4[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, whereby a decision has been taken to drop further investigation in the issue relating to collection of funds by the 7[th] respondent Thiruvithamcore Devaswom Employees Confederation from the employees of the 4[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board as well as the contractors engaged by the Devaswom Board for its activities and utilising a portion of the said amount for purchasing land and building for the Employees Confederation at Nanthancode in Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1, 3 and 5 to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5, P6 and P7 representations dated 12.09.2022, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent Director of 4 ## W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 Vigilance and Anit Corruption Bureau to take over the investigation on the allegations mentioned in Ext.P1 complaint dated 04.11.2019 made by certain employees of the 4[th] respondent Board before the Chief Minister’s Public Grievance Redressal Cell and Ext.P3 report dated 10.05.2020 of the Sub Inspector of Police, in the Vigilance and Security Wing of the Devaswom Board addressed to the 6[th] respondent Chief Vigilance Security Officer (Superintendent of Police) and conduct investigation in a proper and fair manner and file report within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. the 7[th] respondent Thiruvithamcore Devaswom Employees Confederation, which is an association of the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board had illegally collected money from the officers and employees of the Board, as well as from the contractors engaged by the Board for its activities and by utilising a portion of the said amount, purchased land and building worth Rs.62,00,000/- at Nanthancode in Thiruvananthapuram City and renovated the building by spending an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- 5 ## W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 out of the said amount. The office bearers of the 7[th] respondent Employees Confederation have also misappropriated huge amount out of the money collected from the employees and the contractors. On a complaint made by certain persons, an inquiry was conducted on the above issue and the Investigation Officer found illegal collection of funds by the 7[th] respondent Employees Confederation from the officers, employees and contractors of the Board. The Investigation Officer suggested a further investigation on the above issue by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau of the State. Though the Investigating Officer has _prima facie_ found corruption in the activities of the 7[th] respondent Employees Confederation in collecting funds, the 4[th] respondent Devaswom Board vide Ext.P4 order dated 10.08.2020 decided not to make any further investigation in that issue. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. On 30.09.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel 6 ## W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 4 to 6. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 7[th] respondent, returnable by 11.10.2022. By the order dated 30.09.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P4 order dated 10.08.2020. 4. The 7[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 11.11.2022, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Ext.R7(a) circular No.3(V)/99/2 dated 29.06.1999 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 10.12.2022, producing therewith Exts.P10 and P11, as additional documents. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 25.01.2023, producing therewith a copy of Ext.R7(a) circular as Ext.R4(a). The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 11.03.2023, producing therewith Ext.P12 as an additional documents. 5. On 20.06.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to make available for 7 ## W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 the perusal of this Court the entire files relating to Ext.P4 order dated 10.08.2020, including the report dated 02.07.2020 of the 5[th] respondent Devaswom Commissioner. On 30.06.2023, Registry was directed to retain the files handed over by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, i.e., ROC No.4483/20/vig, in the safe custody of Registrar (Judicial). 6. M. Padmanabhan has submitted a complaint dated 04.05.2023 against the office bearers alleging corruption by an office bearer of the 7[th] respondent Employees Confederation. The said complaint was incorporated in the judges' papers of this writ petition, after serving copy of the same to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned counsel for the 7[th] respondent Employees Confederation. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 4 to 6 and also the learned counsel for the 7[th] 8 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 respondent Employees Confederation. 8. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Sabarimala Devaswom is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the Act, under Chengannur Group, Pathanamthitta Taluk. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. As per Section 16 of the Act, the Board shall, 9 ## W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. As per Section 31 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated, and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 9. In **Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board [1975 KLT 55]** a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, under Section 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard to the Devaswoms - incorporated and unincorporated - is analogous to 10 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 that of trustees. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. ## 10. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara** **[(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not, therefore, occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property if at all that was necessary, to the best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs.21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property 11 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, 12 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 11. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/ archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active 13 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 12. In **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [(2013) 3 KLT 132]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a ThreeJudge Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The Division Bench further noticed that the relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court is the guardian of the deity and apart from the revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the High Court is having inherent 14 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 jurisdiction and the doctrine of _parens patriae_ will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. ## 13. In **Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022** **(2) KHC 411]** this Court held that in view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the 3[rd] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of Sabarimala Devaswom, which is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the said Act, under the Chengannur Group. The Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom and conduct daily worships and ceremonies and also festivals in the temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held by this Court in **Ram** 15 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 **Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55]** . Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshiper. 14. In **Suo motu [2022 (2) KHC 411]** this Court held that the Travancore Devaswom Board and those entrusted with the duty of managing the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom are duty bound to protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees. Any such wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, which are acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The deity being a perpetual minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of _parens patriae_ will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction. 15. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala filed SSCR No.11 of 2022, pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 14.02.2022 in DBP No.2 of 2022 – **Suo motu** **v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2) KHC 411]** . The said 16 ## W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 DBP was registered by the proceedings dated 31.01.2022, based on a news item that appeared in the Mathrubhumi online edition dated 30.01.2022 alleging huge corruption in the submission of fake food bills at Sabarimala Guest House. As per that news report, top officials are behind disbanding the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The move was spearheaded by those fearing arrest if the fake bills submitted at Sabarimala Guest House and the irregularities in the toilet construction come out. Four officers, including two Sub Inspectors, were removed from the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. That DBP was disposed of by the order dated 14.02.2022, with the directions contained in paragraph 33 of that order. 16. SSCR No.11 of 2022 was disposed of by the order dated 27.06.2023 **[Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others –** **2023:KER:41764]** wherein it was held that the recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer in the report dated 07.07.2022 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee, which is one made based on Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing cannot be brushed aside by the Devaswom 17 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 Commissioner, who is the disciplinary authority, or by the Board, without stating cogent reasons. The Devaswom Commissioner, while submitting his report before the Board, and the Board, while passing orders based on the recommendation of the Devaswom Commissioner, has to state cogent reasons for brushing aside the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. The order passed by the Board should reflect proper application of mind, which has to be manifest from the order itself. Paragraphs 20 to 23 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus; “20. As borne out from Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing, Karuppuswamy, the District Police Chief, Idukki, who stayed in the Guest House on 30.12.2021, had food from the police mess. However, as per the rough register maintained by Vishnu Prakash, Karuppuswamy had food at the Guest House. Similarly, as per the rough register, in November and December, 2021 and January, 2022, the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala had food at the Guest House on days on which he had not even visited Sabarimala on account of court sittings in the Additional District Court, Kollam. Though the Special Commissioner was not at Sabarimala, the room earmarked for him functions as his office, in which his Secretary Balachandran Pillai and the Devaswom guard attached to that office will be present, and they are provided with food at the Guest House. In the 18 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Wing, it was revealed that Vishnu Prakash failed to maintain a proper register in the Guest House. Therefore, in the reports of the Vigilance Wing, it was recommended to take action against Vishnu Prakash. Based on Annexures I and II reports, the 5[th] respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer submitted report No.PTN 08/22/TDB/VIG dated 07.07.2022 before the Board, wherein he has recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Vishnu Prakash. The said recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer has been referred to in paragraph 2 of Annexure R3(a) order dated 30.01.2023. However, based on the recommendation made by the 4[th] respondent Devaswom Commissioner in his report No.ROC 16995/22/Est.-A dated 11.11.2022 to close the proceedings initiated against Vishnu Prakash giving strict warning, the Board has decided in Annexure R3(a) order to close the proceedings initiated against Vishnu Prakash by censuring him. 21. In view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees. The 19 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer in the report dated 07.07.2022 to initiate disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee, which is one made based on Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing, cannot be brushed aside by the Devaswom Commissioner, who is the disciplinary authority, or by the Board, without stating cogent reasons. The Devaswom Commissioner, while submitting his report before the Board, and the Board, while passing orders based on the recommendation of the Devaswom Commissioner, has to state cogent reasons for brushing aside the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. The order passed by the Board should reflect proper application of mind, which has to be manifest from the order itself. 22. The accounts of the Board are subjected to audit annually, as per the requirements of Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, by the auditors appointed by this Court under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act. Maintaining a rough register for the Guest House during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season and entering the name of the guests in the accommodation register later, for the purpose of statutory audit, is a serious irregularity on the part of the employee who was in charge of the Guest House. The statutory audit of the annual accounts of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 is pending on account of the delay on the part of the Board in furnishing the annual 20 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 accounts, which was the subject matter in DBAR No.4 of 2022, which was disposed of by the order dated 24.05.2022, and DBAR No.8 of 2022, which was disposed of by the order dated 13.04.2023. It is for the additional 6[th] respondent Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit to take note of the above aspects while conducting the statutory audit of the accounts of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1197 ME (2021-22). 23. In the above circumstances, this SSCR is disposed of by directing the 3[rd] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the 5[th] respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer in his report No.PTN 08/22/TDB/VIG dated 07.07.2022, taking note of the law laid down hereinbefore at paragraph 21, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision taken by the Board shall be reported to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, who shall file a report before this Court, which shall be numbered as SSCR and placed before the Devaswom Bench.” 17. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions of this Court in **Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2023:KER:41764]** the decision taken by the 4[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board in Ext.P4 order dated 10.08.2020, it was decided to drop further investigation in the issue relating 21 ## W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 to collection of funds by the 7[th] respondent Employees Confederation from the employees of Board as well as the contractors engaged by the Board for its activities and utilising a portion of the said amount for purchasing land and building for the Employees Confederation at Nanthancode, brushing aside Ext.P3 report dated 10.05.2020 of the Vigilance Wing of the Board, cannot be sustained in law, which warrants interference in this writ petition. 18. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P4 order dated 10.08.2020 of the 4[th] respondent Board and by directing the Board to reconsider the matter taking note of the recommendation made in Ext.P3 report dated 10.05.2020 of the Vigilance Wing of the Board, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in **Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others** **[2023:KER:41764]** , with notice to the writ petitioner, a representative of the 7[th] respondent Employees Confederation and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. 19. It would be open to the petitioner, the representative of the 7[th] respondent Employees Confederation to submit their 22 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 written submissions before the 4[th] respondent Devaswom Board, which shall be submitted on the date of first appearance itself. The Board shall pass a ‘reasoned order’, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months. Registrar (Judicial) to return the files kept in the safe custody to the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** **yd** 23 W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX`** |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.04.11.2019 BY`**| ||**`CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BOARD`**| ||**`BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER'S PUBLIC GRIEVANCE`**| ||**`REDRESSAL CELL.`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.08.06.2020 OF`**| ||**`THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OF THE 6TH`**| ||**`RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.10.05.2020 OF THE`**| ||**`INVESTIGATING OFFICER UNDER THE 7TH RESPONDENT,`**| ||**`REFERRED TO IN EXT.P2.`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC-4483/2020/VIG,`**| ||**`DT.10-08-2020 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.12-09-2022`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.12-09-2022`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.12-09-2022`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.15-09-2022 FILED`**| ||**`BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION`**| ||**`OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.16-09-2022 ISSUED`**| ||**`BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P10`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE`**| ||**`MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 21/06/2022`**| |**`Exhibit P11`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE VOLUME-11 OF TRAVANCORE`**| ||**`DEVASWOM MANUAL`**| |**`Exhibit P12`**|**`True copy of the News item published in the`**| ||**`Mathrubhumi Daily dt.01-02-2023`**| |**`7th RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`**|| |**`Exhibit R7(a)`**|**`The true copy of the circular bearing No.`**| ||**`3(V)/99/2 dated 29/6/1999 issued by the Central`**| ||**`Vigilance Commission`**| |**`4th RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`**|| |**`Exhibit-R4(a)`**|**`True copy of Circular No 3(v) /99/2 of Central`**| ||**`Vigilance Commission dated 29-06-1999`**|