Mariyam Beegam v. Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019(A)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MARIYAM BEEGAM, W/O.MUSTHAFA, 5/457, KOONATHIL HOUSE, VELLANCHERY, THAVANOOR, PONNANI.** **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, RTA, COLLECTORATE P.O., MALAPPURAM - 676 505.** - **2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., MALAPPURAM - 676 505.** - **3 THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PONNANI P.O., PONNANI - 679 577.** - **4 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROADS DIVISION, PONNANI P.O., PONNANI - 679 577.** - **5 *ADDL R5. DAMODARAN.K S/O.KRISHNAN, KONTHAM, KULANGARA, TRIPPALLUR, ATHALLUR, MALAPPURAM.** - **6 *ADDL R6. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.KUNJUKUTTAN NAIR, KOLATHARA HOUSE, THAVANUR, ATHALLUR, MALAPPURAM.** - **7 *ADDL R7. NANDAKUMAR A.P., S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, AYARATHI PARAMBU, ATHALLUR, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM.** - **8 *ADDL R8. VIJAYAN.P.V., S/O.NARAYANAN, PERINCHERIVALAPPIL HOUSE, ATHALLUR P.O, MALAPPURRAM.** **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 2** **9 *ADDL R9 SADNANDA, S/O.GOPALA MENON, POTTEKKATTUKAZHUNGIL ATHALLUR, THAVNUR, MALAPPURAM.** **10 *ADDL R10, PRADEEP P.V., S/O.VASUDEVAN, PERINCHERIVALAPPIL HOUSE, ATHALLUR P.O, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM .** ***ADDL R5 TO R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1601-2020 IN IA 1/20** **SMT.MABLE C KURIEN, GP R5 BY ADV. G.CHITRA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).3832/2020(D), WP(C).16644/2020(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.3832 OF 2020(D)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MARIYAM BEEGAM, W/O MUSTHAFA, 5/457, KOONATHIL HOUSE, VELLANCHERY, THAVANOOR, PONNANI.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., UPHILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505.** - **2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., UPHILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505.** - **3 DAMODARAN K. S/O KRISHNAN, KONTHAM, KULANGARA, TRIPPALLUR, ATHALLUR, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM-679 573.** - **4 SUBRAMANIAN, S/O KUNJUKUTTAN NAIR, KOLATHARA HOUSE, ATHALLUR, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM-679 573.** - **5 NANDAKUMAR A.P, S/O ACHUTHAN NAIR, AYARATHIPARAMBU, ATHALLUR, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM-679 573.** - **6 VIJAYAN P.V, S/O NARAYANAN, PERINCHERIVALAPPIL HOUSE, ATHALLUR, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM-679 573.** - **7 SADNANDA, S/O GOPALA MENON, POTTEKKATTUKAZHUNGIL, ATHALLUR, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM-679 573.** - **8 PRADEEP P.V, S/O VASUDEVAN, PERINCHERIVALAPPIL HOUSE, ATHALLUR, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM-679 573.** **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 4** **9 R. EASWARAN, EASHWAR NIVAS, THRIKKAVU, PONNANI P.O. PONNANI-679 577.** **SMT.MABLE C. KURIEN, GP R3-8 BY ADV. SMT.G.CHITRA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).31601/2019(A), WP(C).16644/2020(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 5** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **WP(C).No.16644 OF 2020(E)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MARIAM BEEGAM W/O.MUSTHAFA, 5/457, KOONATHIL HOUSE, VELLANCHERY, THAVANOOR, PONNANI.** **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/TAXATION OFFICER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, COLLECTORATE P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 505.** ## **SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).31601/2019(A), WP(C).3832/2020(D), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 6** ## **JUDGMENT** Smt. Mariyam Beegam is the petitioner in these writ petitions. She states that she is the holder of a regular permit on the route Tanur - Ponnani via Thavanur and Athalur, which permit is valid till 17.8.2020. Her grievance is that a series of check reports have been issued to her by the AMVI alleging that the petitioner was operating her stage carriage bearing Reg. No.KL-517012 along a deviated route against the stipulations in the permit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties and exhibits shall be referred as they have been described in W.P.(C) No.31601/2019. 3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the permit issued in her favour enables her to operate the vehicle from Tanur to Ponnani via Tirur, Kuttippuram, Madathilpady, Thavanur, Muradavilpadi, Athalur road junction and Nariparamba. But the official respondents insist that the petitioner has to operate along the Tanur - Ponnani route via Tirur, Thazhepalam, Tirur bus stand, BP Angadi, Thirunavaya, Kuttipuram, Thavanur Road Jn. Ayankalam, Madthilpady, Thavanur, Athalur, Athalur Road Jn., Nariparamba and CV Jn. For the sake of clarity, the petitioner has produced a sketch showing the route presently operated by her (P1 route) and the route of operation as insisted by the respondents (R1 route). **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 7** ## **P1 route** **==> picture [448 x 233] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [62 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> R1 route<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> **==> picture [448 x 220] intentionally omitted <==** **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 8** 4. According to the petitioner, by insisting that the petitioner should operate via Thrippalur, the distance to be traversed by the petitioner would increase by about 5.6 kms. She contends that there are no records to show that either the petitioner nor her predecessor in interest had applied for permit via Thrippalur. The petitioner therefore cannot be compelled to operate on any route other than what is mentioned in her permit is her contention. However, by alleging that the petitioner was operating via Muradavilpady Exts.P4, P6 and P7 check reports have been issued to compel the petitioner to deviate through Thrippalur. She contends that she had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.26746/2019 seeking a direction that the petitioner shall not be compelled to operate in a deviate route. She also instituted another petition as W.P(C) No.26457 of 2019 seeking police protection to strictly operate within the permit and this Court, by Ext.P3 common judgment, had ordered that the petitioner should operate on the route permitted as per the permit and not through a deviated route. It is her contention that forcing the petitioner to operate through Thrippalur would tantamount to operating the stage carriage against the terms of the permit. It is in the afore circumstances that she has approached this Court with these writ petitions. 5. In W.P.(C) No.31601/2019, the relief sought for are as follows: ## **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** ## **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 9** i) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ in the said nature quashing Exts.P4, P6 and P7 check reports as the same is issued in excess of jurisdiction. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram to consider the issue as relating to the petitioner’s permit and direct its subordinates not to compel the petitioner to operate on the route as detailed in the permit granted as relating to the permit on the route Tanur-Ponnani in respect of SC KL-51 7012 within a time frame. ## 6. In W.P.(C) No.3832 of 2020, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ in the said nature quashing Ext.P6 decision of the RTA which compels the petitioner to operate through a route which was not mentioned in the permit not applied for; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the original permit files consisting of the application for regular permit, route sketch, the report of the field officer at the time of consideration of the application of the basic permit and the report of the field officer relied for the purpose of taking Ext.P6 decision, before this Hon’ble Court; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the RTA, Malappuram to re-consider the issue in item No.161 of the meeting held on 07.01.2020 after giving a copy of the joint RTO’s report to the petitioner and also permit the petitioner to peruse the original permit files. ## 7. In W.P.(C) No.16644/2020, the relief sought for as follows: i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** ## **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 10** directions or orders directing the respondent, Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram to accept to tax in respect of SC KL-51 7012 for the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.03.2020 without insisting for compounding the check reports, taking note of the decision reported in 2017(3)KLT 744. 8. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C) 31601 of 2019. It is stated that the petitioner is the permit holder of stage carriage No. KL-51-7012 which is conducting regular service on the route Tanur - Ponnani via Tavanur, Athalur. The said vehicle is now being operated by a certain Rajesh K.M., S/o.Narayanan. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted Annexure-R2(f) joint application on 1.10.2019 to transfer the permit from the name of the petitioner to that of Smt. K.Seemanthini. Annexure-R2(a) is produced to show that the permit to operate on the route was originally issued to a certain Sri.P.V.Vijayan and thereafter, it changed several hands and ultimately, the petitioner became the permit holder in the year 2016. She was operating the vehicle along R1 route above. However, recently, complaints were received that the vehicle was being operated through Muradavilpady and without touching Athalur. The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector conducted an enquiry and it was found that the vehicle was operating along a deviated route. Check reports were issued to ensure that the petitioner operates along the permitted route. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.26457 of 2019 and this Court, by judgment dated 14.10.2019, ordered the Secretary, RTA to initiate **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 11** appropriate action to ensure that the petitioner operates strictly in tune with the permit. However, the petitioner continued to operate on the deviate route and in the said circumstances, Annexure- R2(b) show cause notice was issued. It is further stated that, by operating on the deviated route via Muradavilpady, the petitioner has skipped Athalur which place is specifically mentioned even in Ext.P1 permit. Thrippalur is a place between Madathipady and Athalur and in that view of the matter, without touching Thrippalur, the petitioner could not have proceeded via Athalur to reach Athalur road junction and then to Nariparamba. It is further stated that numerous representations were received from Schools and other institutions that the petitioner has stopped operation through Thrippalur and Athalur. It is further contended that the assertion of the petitioner that check reports have been issued at the instance of politicians with a view to force the petitioner to operate on a route which is not covered by the permit is incorrect. 9. An application seeking impleadment was filed by additional respondents 5 to 10 claiming that they are residents of the area and that they have been adversely affected by the operation of the stage carriage through a deviated route. The said application was allowed. 10. I have heard Sri. Dinesh Menon and Sri. M. Jithesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in these writ petitions, Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar, the learned Government Pleader and Sri. **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 12** K.V.Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. 12. The grievance of the petitioner is plain and simple. She says that Ext.P1 permit issued to her does not require her to touch Thrippalur on her way from Kuttipuram to Ponnani. According to her, the route through which she has been operating is as per P1 route. As per the said route, after reaching Madathilpady, the vehicle is required to go to Thavannur then to Athalur Road Jn. via Muradavilpady to Nariparamba and then to CV Jn. and Ponnani. The respondents on the other hand, contends that on reaching Madathilpady, the vehicle has to go to Thavanur, return back to Madathilpady, and then proceed to Athalur via Thrippalur, reach Athalur Road Jn., and then proceed to Ponnani via Nariparamba and CV Jn. This is the route shown in R1 route above. 13. It has to be mentioned at this juncture that the respondents have a case that from the issuance of Annexure-R2(a) permit issued in the name of Sri.P.V.Vijayan on 18.08.1995, the respective permit holders have been operating along R1 route. The petitioner on the other hand banks on the fact that Thrippalur is not mentioned in Ext.P1 permit. However, I find that Thavanur and Athalur find a place in Ext.P1. If that be the case, after reaching Thavanur, the vehicle will have to turn around and reach Athalur and **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 13** on the way will have to touch Thrippalur as well. If one goes by P1 route suggested by the petitioner, the vehicle will not require to pass through Athalur at all. 14. There is yet another matter. The petitioner had earlier approached this court and had filed W.P.(C) No.26457/2019 seeking police protection. Along with the Writ Petition the petitioner had produced several documents including an FIR in Crime No.294/2019 of the Kuttipuram Police Station. The informant was one Rajeesh. The party respondents have produced Ext.R5(b), the FIR in Crime No. 294/2019 registered on 23.9.2019 at the instance of a certain Rajeesh. In the FI statement, he states that he has purchased the stage carriage KL-51-7012 as per a sale letter from the petitioner herein. When he attempted to transfer the permit in his name, he was informed by the Transport Authorities that he should operate in accordance with the permit. He states that the vehicle was being operated through Thrippalur until then and in view of the direction issued by the RTO, he decided to operate the vehicle strictly in terms of the permit and stopped operating through Thrippalur from 21.9.2019. He states that several locals raised objections and started insisting that the vehicle should be taken through Thrippalur via Athallur. Being aggrieved, he approached the Police and lodged the complaint based on which Crime was registered against three identifiable and 17 others who could be identified at sight. This Court, by a **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 14** common judgment, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3, had acted upon the records and had issued directions to the Police to be vigilant. There was also a direction to the official respondents to ensure that the vehicle is operated by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the permit granted to her. Going by this version of Rajeesh which fact is not countered by the petitioner, it can be seen that the petitioner has sold the vehicle to the aforesaid Rajeesh and that it was after obtaining possession of the vehicle sometime in the month of September, 2019 that he decided to skip Athalur and traverse through Muradavilpady. He has in no unmistakable terms asserted that the vehicle was previously operating along Athalur via Thrippalur and that the said service was stopped only after he had come into possession of the vehicle. In view of the above, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that they have always been operating through Muradavilpady and they had no occasion to go to Athallur via Thrippalur. The petitioner appears to be blowing hot and cold at the same time to suit her convenience. 15. The petitioner has a contention that Ext.P1 permit does not mention Thrippalur and hence she cannot be compelled to operate on any other route other than what is mentioned in the permit. If this contention of the petitioner is accepted, in Ext.P1 permit, Murudavilpady is also not made mention of. As stated earlier the petitioner is required to proceed to Ponnani **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 15** via Thavannur and Athallur as per Ext.P1 and if that be the case, she cannot skip Thrippalur which is a place in between Thavannur and Athallur. 16. I find that the RTA, Malappuram had occasion to consider the complaint against stage carriage No.KL-51-7012 for conducting service on the deviated route based on complaints received from various quarters. After getting a report from the RTO, Ponnani, a decision was taken on 7.01.2020, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C).No.3832 of 2020. After perusing the report, the RTA came to the conclusion that the service was all along operating on the route Tanur- Ponnani via Kuttipuram, Ayamkalam, Madathilpady, Thavanur, Athalur, Athalur Road Junction for more than 30 years. On its basis, directions were issued to the permit holder to conduct service through the permitted route that is via Kuttipuram, Ayamkalam, Madathilpady, Thavanur, Madathilpady, Athalur and Athalur Road Junction. I find no reason to interfere with the said order. 17. In W.P. (C) 16644 of 2020, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the RTA to accept Tax in respect of the stage carriage bearing Reg. No.KL-51-7012 for the period from 1.1.2020 to 31.3.2020 without insisting on compounding the check reports. In **Kerala Bus Transport Association and Another v. Transport Commissioner[1]** , this Court had occasion to hold that renewal or refusal of permit or declining the certificate of fitness because of the mere pendency of a check report is wholly 1 [2013 (1) KLT 440] **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 16** inequitable. It was further held that the owner/permit holder cannot be kept on tenterhooks awaiting the culmination of proceedings pursuant to a check report for him to continue the service being operated. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. In **State of Kerala and Another v. C.P.Varghese[2]** , it was held by this Court that the pendency of the check report cannot be used to deny the registered owner his right to transfer the vehicle or in seeking endorsement of the same in the registration certificate. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the said writ petition. 18. For the reasons elucidated above, (a) W.P. (C) 16644 of 2020 will stand allowed. The RTA Malappuram is directed to accept tax in respect of the Stage Carriage being Reg. No.KL-51-7012 for the period from 1.1.2020 to 31.3.2020 without insisting on compounding the check reports. (b) W.P.(C).No.3832 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.31601 of 2019 will stand dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **JUDGE** ps 2 [2017(3) KLT 744] **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 17** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31601/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ON THE ROUTE TANUR PONNANI VIA THAVANUR AND ATHALUR.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE PETITIONER IS OPERATING THE VEHICLE.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.26746/2019 DATED 14/10/2019.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 18/11/2019.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 28/9/2019.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 30/10/2019.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 18/11/2019.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED 29/9/2019** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF ABOOBACKER DATED 10/2/2021** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED AS PART OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS SHOWING THE WAY OF ROUTE** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE WAY OF ROUTE** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 3/2004 SHOWING THRIPALYR AS INTERMEDIATE POINT ALONG WITH THE PERMIT AND SKETCH** - **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R5(a) A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE** ## **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 18** **EXHIBIT R5(b)** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY MR. RAJEESH** **EXHIBIT R5(c)** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGHT COURT** - **EXHIBIT R5(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMISTERSS ALP SCHOOL, ALATHUR** - **EXHIBIT R5(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMASTER, SSUP SCHOOL, THRIKKANAPURAM.** - **EXHIBIT R5(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT R5(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 29/9/2019** - **EXHIBIT R5(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 4/11/2019** **EXHIBIT R5(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.33164/2019** - **EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT** - **EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 4.11.2019.** - **EXHIBIT R2(c) A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ORIGINAL ROUTE** - **EXHIBIT R2(d) A ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE DEVIATED PORTION THROUGH WHICH THE PETIITONER IS PRESENTLY OPERATING** - **EXHIBIT R2(e) TRUE COPIES OF THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS** - **EXHIBIT R2(f) TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT APPLICATION** **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 19** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3832/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 26746/2019 DATED 14.10.2019** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORTS IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 25.9.2019 AND 26.9.2019** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO 31601/2019 DATED 2.11.2019** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF SC** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 18.11.2019** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE DECISION IN ITEM NO 161 DATED 7.1.2020** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2005(2)KLT 227.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED 29/09/2019.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF ABOOBACKER DATED 10/02/2021.** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED TIMINGS TO SC.KL-10 Q 7649 DATED 3/2004.** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3 A A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BY THE PETITIONER IN ANOTHER WRIT PETITION** - **EXHIBIT R3 B A ROUGH SKETCH EXHIBIT R3 C A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY MR.RAJEESH** **EXHIBIT R3 D A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE HEAD MISTRESS, ALP SCHOOL, ALATHALLUR DATED 28/9/2019** - **EXHIBIT R3 E A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY** **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 20** |||**THE HEADMASTER, SSUP SCHOOL,**| |---|---|---| |||**TRIKKANNAPURAM DATED 28/9/2019**| |**EXHIBIT R3**|**F**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE**| |||**PUBLIC SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |||**DATED 26/9/2019**| |**EXHIBIT R3**|**G**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE**| |||**2ND RESPONDENT ON 4/11/2019**| |**EXHIBIT R3**|**H**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC**| |||**NO.33164/2019**| **WP(C).No.31601 OF 2019,** **3832 & 16644 OF 2020 21** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16644/2020** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ON THE ROUTE TANUR-PONNANI.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.3832/2020 DATED 11/2/20. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SITE OF MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2017(3) KLT 744.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL**