N. Vishnu Namboothiri Vishnu Nilayam v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others

1 W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1944** **WP(C) NO.23245 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **N.VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI VISHNU NILAYAM, 100/2, KANDIYUR, TATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690103.** **BY ADVS. S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SNEHA ROSE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695003.** - **2 THE DEWASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEWASWOM, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695003.** - **3 THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, VIGILANCE WING, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695003.** - **4 TETTALIKKAL DEVI TEMPLE, SNDP YOGAM-BR 434, REP. BY SECRETARY, MANNANTHOTTUVAZHY, KADAPRA, MANNAR P.O., NIRANAM-689626.** **BY ADV.** ## **SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING** : 2 W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner applied for selection to the post of Melsanthi at Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 27.05.2021 issued by the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, for the year 1197 M.E (2021-22). The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 rejection memo dated 02.09.2021 and also Ext.P9 order dated 20.09.2021 of the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, whereby his application made pursuant to Ext.P1 notification stands rejected, in continuation of Ext.P2 rejection memo, after conducting a personal hearing, which was conducted pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated 14.09.2021 in W.P.(C) No.18803 of 2021. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he is eligible to be selected as Melsanthi at Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Board to consider Ext.P10 representation dated 01.10.2021, at the earliest, in the light of Ext.P6 clarification letter dated 20.09.2021 and also in the light of Ext.P7 order of the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.8017 of 3 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 2003 dated 27.09.2004. 2. On 27.10.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record the experience certificate originally issued to the petitioner by the authorities of the 4[th] respondent Tettalikkal Devi Temple, Mannar, which is referred to in Ext.P3 experience Certificate dated 08.09.2021 issued by the said respondent. By the order dated 05.11.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021, this Court accepted Ext.P11 Certificate dated 07.06.2021 issued by the authorities in the 4[th] respondent temple, as an additional document. 3. By the order dated 09.03.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, while he was working as a Santhi in a temple under the Management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a statement on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Paragraphs 5 to 9 of that statement read thus: 4 W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 “5. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom for the period 1197 M.E, pursuant to Exhibit-P1 notification. He claimed that he is working as Melsanthi in Thettalikkal Devi Temple, Mannar P.O since 01.01.2008, the said temple is having three times poojas daily and he is qualified in all respects as per Exhibit-P1 notification for the post of Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom. 6. It is submitted that 3[rd] respondent conducted an enquiry with regard to the credentials stated by the petitioner in his application. On enquiry, it is revealed that petitioner is conducting pooja in Thettalikkal Devi Temple, only on special occasions, on daily wage basis. As such he is not having the experience of continuous service as Melsanthi for 10 years within 12 year period in a temple having access to the public, as stipulated in Exhibit-P1 notification and hence his application was rejected. 7. Moreover, petitioner has suppressed the vital aspects with regard to his service while working as Santhi under first respondent Board. On further enquiry conducted by the 3[rd] respondent, it is revealed that he was transferred out from the group because of his proved misbehavior and he was suspended from service pending disciplinary action. He was an employee under the Board upto 12.11.2011. The above aspects are violative of clause 5 & sub clause 7 of clause 12 of Exhibit-P1, which further disqualifies him for selection to the post. 8. It is submitted that petitioner claims to be working Melsanthi in Thettalikkal Devi Temple from 01.01.2008 and 5 W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 conducting poojas three times daily there. But admittedly, he was working as Santhi under first respondent Board till 12.11.2011, which expressly proves the falsity of his claim with respect to experience. Thus Exhibits-P3, P6 & P11 certificates issued by the 4[th] respondent cannot be relied on at all. The very conduct of the petitioner producing false certificates itself disqualifies him, apart from other aspects. The petitioner, who suppressed material facts, alleged falsehood to claim experience, suffered punishment for proved misbehavior and against whom disciplinary action had been initiated cannot be considered for the post of Melsanthi in a world famous Temple like Sabarimala. 9. Petitioner's further contention in respect of Clause No.4 in Exhibit-P1 stipulating 10 years continuous service as Melsanthi within 12 years in a temple having three times pooja daily and having access to public was earlier considered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in **Rajesh J Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2018 (5) KHC 220]** and found that such prescription cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. It is only a qualificational condition precedent and the fixing of such a period is intended to narrow the field of choice to the most. experienced in terms of years.” 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3. 6. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ 6 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P2 rejection memo dated 02.09.2021 and also Ext.P9 order dated 20.09.2021 issued by 1[st] respondent Board, whereby the application made by the petitioner for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, for the year 1197 M.E (2021-22), stands rejected for the reasons stated therein. 7. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is situated inside Periyar Tiger Reserve, is a prominent pilgrim centre in Kerala, where lakhs of devotees trek the rugged terrains of Western Ghats to have darsan of Lord Ayyappa. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple come under the Travancore Devaswom Board. By reason of the custom and tradition, Melsanthies of the Temples are selected every year. The tenure of the Melsanthies is for one year from the 1[st] of Vrischikam to the 31[st] of Thulam next year. 8. In **Mohandas Embranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2001 (1) KLT 203]** , in the context of selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Travancore Devaswom Board, being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 7 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 cannot choose any person as Melsanthi without any guidelines. For every year, the choosing of Melsanthi has to be done only after proper selection. The Division Bench noticed that the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board inviting applications for the selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, for one year from the 1[st] of Vrischikam to 31[st] Thulam, 1176, mentions the basic qualifications necessary for being selected and that, those who have got basic qualifications will be interviewed by the Committee, which will include the Thantri. On the basis of the interview, a short list will be prepared. The selection will be made from the candidates included in the short list on the basis of lot in front of the sanctum sanctorum. The Interview Board should consist of persons, who have knowledge of the subject on which questions are put. The Division Bench noticed that the purpose of the interview is to get the best person for appointment as Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. The knowledge of the candidates in the three topics should be assessed, which can be done with the experts in the field. 9. In **Krishnan Namboothiri S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2015 (5) KHC 829]** , in the 8 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 context of selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, a Division Bench of this Court held that, selection to the post of Melsanthi cannot be treated as a selection merely for public employment and the canvas in which grounds relating to Articles 14, 16, etc., of the Constitution of India would be etched, will not necessarily be carried, as a whole, into such matters. The scheme of the settlement and purpose of the selection to provide Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples have to be borne in mind and cohesively treated while assimilating and applying the terms of the settlement. The Division Bench, though declined interference with the selection process, indicated before parting with the case that once the terms of mediation settlement came to be in operation, the guarantee to the pilgrims, believers, worshippers and faithful followers is that the selection process once carried through the system of the terms of that settlement will give them two persons who will occupy the adorable status of being the Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples. When such seeds of faith are intricately connected with religion, judicial review is impermissible to embark 9 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 upon and consider any rival claims in the manner as is sought to be raised in the writ petitions. This is all the more so when no breach of the Constitution of India is demonstrated. 10. In **Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2018 (5) KHC 220]** a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case which was filed by an applicant who applied to take part in the selection process leading to the appointment of Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition, it was alleged that, the petitioner is incapacitated from taking part in the process because, as per Ext.P1 notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only a Santhi (Priest) who has had 12 years experience, out of which, 10 years being spent continuously serving as a Melsanthi (Head Priest) of a temple would alone obtain eligibility for being selected as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition it was contended that the above stipulation mandating continuous 10 years service as Melsanthi amounts to an illegal classification among the Santhies, since it has no rationale nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such classification. The petitioner pointed out that till 2016, there was no such stipulation in the notifications, as evidenced by 10 W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 Ext.P9 notification for the year 2013 and Ext.P10 notification for the year 11. In **Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220]** the Division Bench noticed that Ext.P1 notification does not provide that every Santhi who has put in 12 years service is automatically eligible; but it additionally prescribes a condition that such Santhis should also have served as a Melsanthi in a temple for a continuous period of 10 years out of this, for being rendered eligible to be appointed as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. Such prescriptive conditions to determine eligibility of a person can, by no stretch of imagination, be seen as a sub-classification; but the 12 years continuous service as a Melsanthi in any other temple is only a qualificational condition precedent and the fixing of such a period is intended to narrow the field of choice to the most experienced in terms of years. This becomes all the more relevant because, going by the notification, a person who becomes the Melsanthi in Sabarimala can apply again only after a period of 10 years. These are the prescriptions stipulated in the notification, not to discriminate among persons; but solely to ensure that only a person with the stature and experience behooving the sanctity 11 W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 and divinity of Sabarimala, which is one of the most or perhaps the most prominent temples in the country, is identified and appointed. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chapter 5 of the Travancore Devaswom Manual published by the Board in the year 2011 treats 'Santhikkars' as a single class and that the provisions of a Melsanthi therein are only with respect to the volume and nature of work in a particular temple. Manual does not speak specifically about the difference between Melsanthis and other Santhis, but only that Melsanthis and Keezhsanthis are appointed in temples where there is a requirement of more than one Santhi. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that the prescription in Ext.P1 notification is in the nature of specified qualifications for the Sabarimala Temple alone and that these prescriptions are at variance with those for other temples, since Sabarimala is not an ordinary temple, which has its own singular characteristics, which would require the best and the most experienced Santhi to be appointed as the Melsanthi. The Board, therefore, in the year 2016, thought it fit to enumerate certain adscititious conditions to 12 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 identify the best candidate, by stipulating that only a person, who has 12 years experience as a Santhi, out of which 10 years being continuously served as a Melsanthi of another temple, would obtain eligibility for being included in the field of choice for appointment as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala. Even when all these stipulations regarding qualification are obtained to a person, he only comes within the field of choice and he does not get any vested right to be appointed, since such appointment is based on a further selection in the manner as has been postulated by the Apex Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.2570-71 of 2003. 12. In **Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220]** , on consideration of the aforesaid contentions on the prescription of the qualifications mentioned in Ext.P1 notification, the Division Bench found that the attempt of the Travancore Devaswom Board should always be to find the best among the Santhis, so that he will be able to perform as a Purappedasanthi of Sabarimala Temple for a continuous period of one year. His devotion, his competence, his experience and his devoutness are all imperatively relevant criteria, which will require to be specifically and pointedly examined and assessed by the competent authorities; and in 13 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 order to find the person most suitable for the post, the prescription that he should have served as a Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years in the 12 year period of experience as a Santhi cannot be found to be perverse in any manner. 13. The law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to supra is to the effect that the stipulations in the notification inviting application for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom is to ensure that only a person with the stature and experience behooving the sanctity and divinity of Sabarimala, which is one of the most or perhaps the most prominent temples in the country, is identified and appointed. The guarantee to the pilgrims, believers, worshippers and faithful followers is that the selection process once carried through the system of the terms of that settlement will give them two persons who will occupy the adorable status of being the Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly challenge Ext.P2 rejection memo and also Ext.P9 order, relying on Ext.P3 experience certificate dated 08.09.2021 issued by the 14 W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 authorities of the 4[th] respondent Temple and also Ext.P7 order dated 27.09.2004 of the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C).No.8017 of 2003. 15. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would argue that the rejection of the application made by the petitioner based on Ext.P9 order of the 1[st] respondent is perfectly legal, which warrants no interference in this writ petition. 16. Clause 4 and Clause 12(7) of the conditions which forms part of Ext.P1 notification, read thus: “4. രണ� ന�ര� �ട ത�റന�ര�ക�നത��, മ�ന� പ�ജകൾ ഉളത��. എല� ദ�വസവ�� പപ�ത�ജ�ങൾക� ദർശ�ത��� അവസര� �ൽക�നത�മ�യ ന%തതത�ന'� പപ�ത�ജ�ങൾക� ദർശ�ത��� അവസര� �ൽക�നത�മ�യ ന%തതത�ന'� ന%തതങള�ന'� ആപക പത*ണ� വർഷങള�ൽ പത� വർഷങള�ൽ ത�ടർചയ�യ� നമൽശ�*� നസവ�� �ടത�യ�ട�ള വ.ക�യ�യ�ര�കണ� അനപ%കൻ. ബന�കള�പട ശവസ�സ5�രതക�യകൾ നപ�'�ള ക�ര.ങൾക�യ� ത�ൽക�'�കമ�യ� ശ�*� നജ�'�യ�ൽ ��ന�� വ�ട� ��ൽനകണ� വര�ന ക�'യളവ�, സ'� മ�റനതനയ� പ�ത�യ ��യമ�നതനയ� ത�ടർന� സർവ9സ�ൽ ഉണ�ക�ന ത�ൽക�'�ക വ�ര�മ�, ഏപതങ�'�� തത*�നയ�പട�പമ�ള പര�ശ9'� ക�'യളവ�പ' പരമ�വധ� മ�ന� മ�സ� എന�വ ത�ടർചയ�യ സർവ9സ� കണക�ക�ന>�ൾ വ�ട���ന ക�'മ�യ� കണക�ക�നതല. . ക�ട�പത രണ� നമൽശ�*�മ�ർ മ�സ� മ�റ�ട� വ.വസയ�ൽ നജ�'� പ?യ�ന ന%തതങള�ൽ ക9ഴB�*�യ�യ നജ�'� ന��നകണത�യ� വനനക�വ�ന ക�'യളവ�� തപസC�ത പത� വർഷ� കണക�ക�നത��� പര�ഗണ�ക�നത�ണ�.” “12.(7). നദവസE� നബ�ർഡ�കള�പ' ശ�*�ക�ര��പണങ�ൽ നസവ� ക�'യളവ�ൽ എപ*ങ�'�� അചടക �ടപട� ന�ര�നടണ� വന�ട�നണ� എന��, അതപക�ര� ഉപണങ�ൽ അത� സ�ബന�ച�ള വ�ശദ വ�വരവ�� 15 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 ക�ണ�ക�ന അസ�സ��റ നദവസE� കമ9ഷണറ�ൽ ��ന�� വ�ങ�യ സർട�ഫ�കറ���പറ പകർപ�.” 17. Admittedly, the application made by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 notification is one supported by Ext.P11 experience certificate dated 07.06.2021 originally issued by the authorities of the 4[th] respondent temple. A reading of Ext.P11 would make it explicitly clear that it do not fulfil the requirements of Clause 4 of the conditions which forms part of Ext.P1 notification. Ext.P3 experience certificate obtained by the petitioner, from the authorities of the 4[th] respondent temple is one dated 08.09.2021, after the receipt of Ext.P2 rejection memo dated 02.09.2021. Therefore, based on Ext.P3 experience certificate the petitioner cannot seek interference on Ext.P2 rejection memo or Ext.P9 order, since the petitioners' application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification was supported by an experience certificate in terms of Clause (4) of the conditions which forms part of that notification. Therefore, the reason stated in Ext.P2 rejection memo, for rejecting the application made by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. 18. Ext.P9 order rejecting the application made by the 16 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 notification refers a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the year 2011, while he was working as Santhi in a Temple under the management of the 1[st] respondent Board. Relying on Ext.P7 order of the Apex Court dated 27.09.2004 in S.L.P(C).No.8017 of 2003, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the disciplinary proceedings referred to in Ext.P9 order cannot be the basis for rejection of his application made pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. 19. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board Ext.P7 order of the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.8017 of 2003 was in respect of a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, while he was a Santhi in a temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board and that appointment came to an end by August, 2004. In Ext.P7 order, the Apex Court made it clear that, the observations made by this Court in the judgment dated 04.03.2003 in O.P.No.4635 of 2003 may not come in the way of the petitioner in future for appointment. 20. The disciplinary proceedings referred to in Ext.P9 order is in respect of a misconduct alleged to have been committed by 17 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 the petitioner in the year 2011 while he was working as a Santhi in another Temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board. He was transferred to another group and was placed under suspension. He was imposed with a penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. Later he resigned from service on 12.11.2011. The aforesaid proceedings have absolutely no connection with the proceedings referred to Ext.P7 order of the Apex Court in S.L.P(C).No.8017 of 2003. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner would raise a contention that Clause 12(7) of Ext.P1 notification applies only when a Melsanthi of any temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board makes application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. Since the petitioner had already left the service of the Travancore Devaswom Board, in the year 2011, the disclosure contemplated under clause 12(7) has no application. 22. We find no force in the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since as held by this Court in **Krishnan Namboothiri S. [2015 (5) KHC 829]** the guarantee to the pilgrims, believers, worshippers and faithful followers is that the selection process once carried through the 18 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 system of the terms of that settlement will give them two persons who will occupy the adorable status of being the Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples. 23. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the misconduct of the year 2011, based on which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, who was imposed with a penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, is not a serious misconduct which would disqualify him from being considered for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. 24. We do not propose to consider the aforesaid contention in this writ petition, since the application made by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 notification was not supported by an experience certificate as required by Clause 4 of the condition which forms part of Ext.P1 notification. 25. Leaving open the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed, declining interference on Ext.P2 rejection memo dated 02.09.2021 and also Ext.P9 order dated 20.09.2021 of the 1[st] respondent Board. No order as to costs. 19 ## W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 Registry to return the files produced pursuant to the order of this Court dated 09.03.2022 to the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board. **Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** PV 20 W.P.(C) No.23245 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23245/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ROC 61/2021/S DATED 27.5.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO SR NO.6 DATED 2.9.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 8.9.2021.** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 8.9.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.18803/2021 DATED 14.9.2021.** **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER DATED 20.9.21 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP (CIVIL) NO.8017/03 DATED 27.9.04.** **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.10.21.** **Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 07.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER**