Moyinkutty M.K. and Sameer A.K. v. District Collector, Kozhikode and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.6329 OF 2019(M)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**MOYINKUTTY.M.K.,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. AHAMEDKUTTY,**| ||**MADATHUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKOTH.P.O.,**| ||**KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 572**| |**2**|**SAMEER A.K.,**| ||**AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. THARUVAY HAJI,**| ||**AREEKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKOTH P.O.,**| ||**KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 572**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE**| ||**SRI.JAI GEORGE**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| |---|---| ||**CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT OFFICER,**| ||**DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE GROUND WATER**| ||**DEPARTMENT, B-BLOCK, 6TH FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,**| ||**KOZHIKODE - 673 020**| |**3**|**THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND**| ||**GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,**| ||**KOZHIKODE - 673 020**| |**4**|**THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER,**| ||**DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION**| ||**CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR,**| ||**SQUIRE BUILDING, LINK ROAD,**| ||**KOZHIKODE - 673 002**| |**5**|**KIZHAKOTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**| ||**KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 572**| 2 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 **6 N.K. MOHAMMED S/O. KUNHAMU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SPICE BOWL HOTELS PVT LTD, WINNY MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 572** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN SRI.T.M.KHALID SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA SMT.JASILA BEEVI V.K. SRI.K.RAKESH SRI HARISH K.P.- SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners, who are residents of Kozhakoth Grama Panchayat in Kozhikode District, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 communication dated 21.02.2019 issued on behalf of the 1[st] respondent District Collector and Ext.P13 consent to establish dated 26.11.2018 issued by the 4[th] respondent Environmental Engineer. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to take immediate steps to stop the construction activities of the Convention Centre at Paloramala by the 6[th] respondent, till reports of scientific studies are submitted by the experts. 2. On 07.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board took notice on admission for the 4[th] respondent. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 5 and 6, returnable by 13.03.2019. The learned Government Pleader 4 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board were directed to get instructions. 3. On 13.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent Grama Panchayat sought time for getting instructions. 4. On 19.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent pointed out that in respect of the very same construction, W.P. (C) No.4290 of 2019 is also pending consideration. Therefore, Registry was directed to list this writ petition along with W.P. (C) No.4290 of 2019. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6[th] respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 6. On 27.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “This writ petition is listed today along with W.P. (C).No.4290/2019 filed by the 6[th] respondent, which is one filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 07.02.2019 issued by the 5[th] respondent, which was based on a letter dated 31.01.2019 of the 2[nd] respondent District Collector. By Ext.P5, the 5[th] respondent has 5 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 interdicted the 6[th] respondent herein from proceeding with the construction of the convention hall, until a report is received from the expert committee. 2. The 6[th] respondent filed W.P.(C) No.4290/2019 before this Court on 12.02.2019. On 13.02.2019, when that writ petition came for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions from respondents 1 to 4. This Court issued urgent notice by speed post to the 5[th] respondent; Grama Panchayath, returnable within two weeks. The interim order of stay of Ext.P5 proceedings sought for in that writ petition was not granted. It is thereafter that the first respondent District Collector has issued Ext.P7 communication dated 21.02.2019, which is one addressed to the Secretary of the 5[th] respondent Grama Panchayath, whereby the Secretary has been informed that he shall proceed further against the construction activities undertaken by the 6[th] respondent in Paloramala based on the report to be submitted by the expert committee appointed by the 1[st] respondent. It is stated in Ext.P7 that the direction contained in the letter dated 04.02.2019 is recalled. The submission of the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent is that, he has resumed the construction activites, on the basis of Ext.P7. 3. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] respondent Pollution Control Board, learned Standing Counsel for 5[th] respondent Grama Panchayath and also the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent, this Court finds that, it is not discernible from 6 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 Ext.P7 communication, the circumstances which prompted the 1[st] respondent District Collector to recall the earlier communication dated 04.02.2019. In the writ petition filed by the 6[th] respondent as W.P.(C) No.4290/2019, this Court has not granted any interim order on 12.02.2019. Thereafter, on 21.02.2019, the 1[st] respondent has issued Ext.P7 communication. Therefore, it is for the first respondent to file a counter affidavit, within a week, explaining the facts and circumstances. Post on 09.04.2019. In the meanwhile there will be an interim stay of operation of Ext.P7, thereby preventing the 6[th] respondent from undertaking any construction activities in the property in question.” 7. The order of this Court dated 27.03.2019 was challenged before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1025 of 2019 filed by the 6[th] respondent herein. Before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the appellant/6[th] respondent sought liberty to withdraw the writ appeal as the order dated 27.03.2019 is only an interim order and the case is listed for further consideration by this Court on 09.04.2019. In view of such submission that writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the judgment dated 08.04.2019. 8. On 09.04.2019, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the interim order was extended by one 7 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 week and the matter was adjourned to 12.04.2019 for further consideration. 9. The 6[th] respondent has also filed I.A.No.1 of 2019, seeking an order to vacate the interim order granted on 27.03.2019. On 18.06.2019, the 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Thereafter, on 12.07.2019, the 6[th] respondent filed another counter affidavit. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board, representing the 4[th] respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent Grama Panchayat, and also the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent. 11. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P7 communication dated 21.02.2019 issued by the 1[st] respondent District Collector and Ext.P13 consent to establish dated 26.11.2018 issued by the 4[th] respondent to the 6[th] respondent, which is one issued under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of 8 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 12. As far as the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P13 consent to establish is concerned, it is appealable before the Appellate Authority under Section 31 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and Section 28 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act. 13. In **Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]** , the Apex Court held that nonentertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the 9 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 14. In **Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.[(2018) 3 SCC 85]** the Apex Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as observed in **Chaabil Das Agarwal's case (supra)** , i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. After referring to the law laid down in **Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes [AIR 1964 SC 1419]** and **Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433]** the Apex Court held 10 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 that High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 15. In **Thansingh Nathmal's case (supra)** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Article. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily, the court will not entertain a petition for a writ 11 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not, therefore, act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 16. In **Titaghur Paper Mills' case (supra)** a ThreeJudge Bench of the Apex Court held that, the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 provides for a complete machinery to challenge an 12 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in **Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford** **[(1859) 6 CBNS 336]** at page 356 in the following passage: "There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute ..... But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it ..... the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The rule laid down in that passage was approved by the House of Lords in **Neville v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. [1919 AC 368]** and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in **Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. [1935 AC 532] and Secretary of State v.** 13 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 **Mask and Co. [AIR 1940 PC 105]** . It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights and has been followed by the Apex Court throughout. 17. In **Pavithran V. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KHC 4)** , a Full Bench of this Court held that, whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless the same is challenged before the appropriate forum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final. 18. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the petitioners cannot challenge Ext.P13, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the grounds raised in this writ petition. It is for the petitioners to challenge Ext.P13 consent to establish, by invoking the statutory remedy under Section 31 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and Section 28 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, before the appellate authority. 19. Now, I shall deal with the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P7 communication dated 21.02.2019 14 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 issued by the 1[st] respondent, whereby the direction issued by the 1[st] respondent District Collector in communication No.DCKKD/ 15103/2018-FIA dated 04.02.2019 to the Secretary of the 5[th] respondent Grama Panchayat to stop the construction undertaken by the 6[th] respondent at Paloramala, stands recalled. 20. As already noticed in the order of this Court dated 27.03.2019, the 6[th] respondent has filed W.P.(C)No.4290 of 2019 before this Court on 12.02.2019 challenging the order dated 07.02.2019 of the 5[th] respondent, which was one issued based on a communication dated 31.01.2019 of the 1[st] respondent District Collector. By that order, the 5[th] respondent interdicted the 6[th] respondent from proceeding further with the construction of the Convention Centre at Paloramala, until a report is received from the Expert Committee. On 13.02.2019, when W.P.(C)No.4290 of 2019 came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice by speed post to the 5[th] respondent Grama Panchayat and no interim stay of operation of the order dated 07.02.2019 of the Secretary of the 5[th] respondent Grama Panchayat was granted. It is thereafter that the 1[st] 15 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 respondent issued Ext.P7 communication dated 21.02.2019, which is one addressed to the Secretary of the 5[th] respondent Grama Panchayat, whereby the Secretary was informed that he shall proceed further against the construction undertaken by the 6[th] respondent in Paloramala based on the report to be submitted by the Expert Committee appointed by the 1[st] respondent. It is stated in Ext.P7 that the direction contained in the communication dated 04.02.2019 is recalled. On 27.03.2019, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration along with W.P.(C)No.4290 of 2019, the submission of the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent was that, the said respondent resumed the construction activities on the basis of Ext.P7. 21. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and also the pleadings and material on record, this Court passed an interim order, extracted hereinbefore, whereby an interim stay of operation of Ext.P7 was granted, thereby preventing the 6[th] respondent from undertaking any construction activities in the property in question. By the said order, the 1[st] respondent was directed to 16 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 file a counter affidavit within a week, explaining the facts and circumstances. 22. Pursuant to that order, the 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit on 18.06.2019. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said counter affidavit read thus; “6. Further, it is seen that a major portion of the building is being constructed in a slope of approximately 25 degree. This portion of the building is being constructed after cutting the natural slope. It is also noticed that for the purpose of the construction natural vegetation is disturbed and hence micro eco system of the area is damaged to small extend. Earth cutting and filling were also done. Moreover, due to the construction activities natural drains are closed and no additional facilities are made for draining out surplus water from the area. Piling work was also done for the construction of the building at very high slope in the top of the hill. Earth filling has been made on the bottom side of the building. Heavy retaining wall has been constructed on the lower side of the building which retains huge soil mass above at very high slope, which is seen as unstable. A true copy of the initial report of the expert **-** committee is produced herewith and marked as **Exhibit R1(a)** . 7. Thus, after receiving the initial report, the District Collector issued an order on 14.05.2019 under Section 30(xxiii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 stopping the further construction. A true copy of the order dated 17 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 **-** 14.05.2019 is produced herewith and marked as **Exibit R1(b)** . On the basis of the initial report a joint discussion with the expert committee members along with the builders were held in the presence of the District Collector on 17.05.2019 and then expert committee submitted a detailed final report with remedial suggestions on the same day. A true copy of the final report of the expert committee dated 17.05.2019 is produced herewith and marked as **- Exhibit R1(c)** . A copy of the report dated 17.05.2019 is also given to the concerned builders on the same day. 8. As per the final report, the structural drawings reveal that the building is a 6 storied structures of reinforced concrete and steel sections. The third basement floor (the lowest floor) is at contour 210 m lowest level (approximate) and the second floor (the top floor) is at contour 230m highest level (approximate). Thus, at the lowest level of 210m contour all the 6 floors exist where as there is only one floor (second floor) at 230m level contour. Thus the construction does not follow the natural slope of the terrain. Each storey is separated by heavy retaining wall which retains the heavy soil mass as well as supports additional pressure exerted by building on the upper side. 9. Though the soil report recommends shallow foundation for the structure, pile foundations (deep foundation) are seen provided as per the structural drawings. It was informed during the site visit that this has been done as an additional safety. However actual depth (as built) of pile foundation could not be ascertained. Thus the data that pile has been taken up to the hard rock is not available. 18 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 10. Thus, the proposed construction is on the sloping terrain with maximum number floors on the slope. Though steel sections are used which reduces dead weight, this is likely to destabilize the slope. The foundation design of the proposed structure has to be vetted by an expert in geo technical engineering from any approved agency/organisation. The design has to be critically scrutinized with respect to the characteristics of the terrain of the site. The possibilities of any future landslides must be checked by providing proper retaining walls at appropriate locations, providing proper drainage or by any other means. This design shall also be checked and vetted by experts from any approved agency like National Centre for Earth Science Studies (NCESS). Thus, any further construction can be made by the respondent only complying with remedial measures suggested by the expert committee by its report dated 17.05.2019.” 23. The pleadings and materials on record would show that as on the date of issuance of Ext.P7 communication, i.e., as on 21.02.2019, there was absolutely no materials before the 1[st] respondent District Collector to recall the directions contained in the communication dated 04.02.2019. In the order dated 27.03.2019, this Court noticed the submission of the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent that the said respondent resumed the construction activities on the basis of Ext.P7. 19 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 24. Now, as can be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent, the Expert Committee has submitted an initial report dated 06.05.2019, based on which the 1[st] respondent District Collector has issued Ext.R1(b) order dated 14.05.2019 stopping the construction activity at Paloramala till 22.05.2019, in exercise of his powers under clause (xxiii) of Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, on being convinced that the ongoing constructions at Paloramala are not in compliance with the standards required for prevention of disaster. Now, the Expert Committee has submitted a final report dated 17.05.2019 with remedial suggestions, which is placed on record as Ext.R1(c). 25. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and also the pleadings and materials on record, this Court finds that the reasoning of the 1[st] respondent in Ext.P7 communication dated 21.02.2019, whereby the directions contained in the communication dated 04.02.2019 stands recalled, cannot be sustained in law. In such circumstances, Ext.P7 communication dated 21.02.2019 is set aside and the 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider the 20 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 matter with notice to the petitioners, the concerned officials in the Department of Mining and Geology, Pollution Control Board and also the Grama Panchayat, taking note of the statutory provisions under Disaster Management Act, 2005 and also Exts.R1(a) and R1(c) reports of the Expert Committee and other relevant materials. The exercise in this regard shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 26. Till such orders are passed, the interim order granted by this Court on 27.03.2019 shall continue to be in force. It would be open to the petitioners and also to the 6[th] respondent to submit their written submission before the 1[st] respondent, which shall be considered by the 1[st] respondent, while taking a decision as directed above. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **yd** 21 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.**| |---|---| ||**CR.NO.318/2018-DATED 8/8/2018,**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**KIZHAKOTH TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.**| - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER, WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 21/8/2018, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** |**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER**| |---|---| ||**NO.G.W/K.K.D/T-1710/2018 DATED**| ||**29/8/2018, SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. GD1-**| ||**8691/18-DATED 6/9/2018, SUBMITTED BY**| ||**THE TAHSILDAR, THAMARASSERY TO THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.**| ||**D.O.Z/M.2289/18-DATED 10/12/2018,**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE**| ||**2ND PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.**| ||**D.C.KKD/15103/2018-FIA DATED**| ||**31/1/2019, ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.**| ||**D.C.KKD/15103/2018-FIA DATED**| ||**21/2/2019, ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.**| ||**C12739/2016-L.DIS DATED 31/12/2016,**| ||**ISSUED BY THE TOWN PLANNER, KOZHIKODE**| ||**TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT**| 22 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 **EXHIBIT P9** **A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D1/3919/2017-L.DIS DATED 16/5/2017, ISSUED BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3/5437/16 DATED 31/5/2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER** - **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. D1/3919/2017-L.DIS DATED 12/7/2017, ISSUED BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER** - **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A33794/18 DATED 19/9/2018, ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED 26/11/2018, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P14** **A TRUE COPY OF W.P. (C).NO.605 OF 2019 DATED 1/2/2019** - **EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HILL SLOPE WHICH IS DAMAGED DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT** - **5 TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R5(a) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3994/18 DATED 23.02.2019 OF SECRETARY, KIZHAKOTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** ## **1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE INITIAL REPORT OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE DATED 06.05.2019.** - **EXHIBIT R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 14.05.2019.** 23 WP(C)6329 OF 2019 **EXHIBIT R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE DATED 17.05.2019.** **6TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R6(A)** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED, 25-62019 PREPARED BY THE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT.** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**