Padmanabhan P.P. and Jayaprakash A.P. v Illath Abdul Majeed and others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 377 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2/2021 IN OS.NO.173/2021 OF THE ``` ``` PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF’S COURT-I KOZHIKODE ``` ``` CMA.NO.52/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-III, KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:`** - **`1 PADMANABHAN P.P, S/O.LATE CHAPPUNNI NAIR, AGED 74 YEARS, MEYANA HOUSE, NADUVALLOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, KAKKUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673613.`** - **`2 JAYAPRAKASH A. P., AGED 73 YEARS S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMA, RAJASREE HOUSE, NANMINDA AMSOM AND DESOM, NANMINDA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673613. BY ADVS.SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM B.G.BHASKAR`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 ILLATH ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. ITHOTY, ILLATH HOUSE, SIVAPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, SIVAPURAM P.O., THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673613.`** - **`2 HARIDAS N A, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. LATE MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, MANNATHKANDY HOUSE, NANMINDA AMSOM AND DESOM, NANMINDA P.O., KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673613`** ``` 3K BALARAMA KURUP, AGED 70 YEARS S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, SIVAPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, SIVAPURAM P.O., THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. , PIN - 673612 ``` O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 2 - **`4 SAYAD MUHAMMAD HAJI, AGED 79 YEARS S/O. LATE KOLLANKANDY MAMMU, PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, BALUSSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE. , PIN – 673612.`** - **`5 BALAKRISHNAN KIDAV, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. RARUKUTTY NAIR,KOODATHINGAL HOUSE, KOKKALLUR AMSOM AND MANNAMPOYIL DESOM, MANNAMPOYIL P.O KOYILANDY, KOZHIKKODE., PIN – 673612.`** - **`6 MINAS THENANCHERY, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED IQBAL, THENANCHERRY HOUSE, KOZHIKKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKKODE P.O., PIN – 673004.`** - **`7 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673573`** - **`R1 TO R3 & R5 BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN`** - **`R6 BY ADV.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)`** ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the judgment dated 6.1.2022 passed by the Additional District Court-III, Kozhikode in CMA.No.52/2021 which confirmed the order dated 24.9.2021 passed by the Principal Munsiff's Court-I, Kozhikode in I.A.No.2/2021 in O.S.No.173/2021. 2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.173/2021 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court-I, Kozhikode are the appellants. The defendants are the respondents. 3. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for a declaration that the general body meeting of Nanminda High School Society held on 21.2.2021 is invalid and non est and that there is no validly elected governing body and office bearers for Nanminda High School Society. The plaintiffs also prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from functioning as the office bearers of Nanminda High School Society. 4. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.2/2021 seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from claiming to be and functioning as the office bearers of Nanminda High School O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 4 Society and prohibiting defendant No.6 from interfering with the administration of the Nanminda High School Society as the President of the society. 5. The case of the plaintiffs is based on the following pleadings:- Nanminda High School belongs to a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, named 'Nanminda High School Society' (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”). The Society has 134 members at present. The bye-law of the Society provides for the administration of the said society by a governing body consisting of 21 members. The members of the governing body are to be elected at a meeting of the general body members for a term of three years. The quorum of a valid general body meeting is one-fourth of the total members of the Society. The term of office of the governing committee elected in January 2018 expired in January, 2021. Defendants 1 to 5 derived their authority as office bearers of the Society from the alleged meeting of the general body of the Society on 21.01.2021 and the alleged election of a governing committee by that meeting. The general body meeting held on 21.01.2021 of the Society is patently illegal as it is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the bye-law. No proper notices were issued for any general body meeting in 2021 and it O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 5 is impossible to issue a proper notice now as there is no President or Secretary for the Society at present. The purported meeting of the general body of the Society on 21.01.2021 is bereft of the prescribed quorum and hence the governing committee elected at that meeting is per se invalid and illegal. Therefore, the office bearers elected by that committee have no right to function as the office bearers of the Society. 6. Defendants 1, 3 and 5 resisted the claims of the plaintiffs. They contended that the period of the committee elected in 2018 expired in 2021. Thereafter notices were issued to the members of the Society as per law and general body meeting was convened on 21.01.2021 and new office bearers of the governing committee were elected. Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 were elected as President, Secretary and Manager respectively. 7. The District Education Officer, Thamarassery has approved the election of respondent No.5/defendant No.5 as Manager of the Society. It is incorrect to say that office bearers of the Society were elected without any prescribed quorum and against the provisions of the bye-law. The general body meeting was conducted with the quorum prescribed by the bye-law of the Society. The petitioners/plaintiffs have no right to challenge the general body meeting held on 21.1.2021. O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 6 8. Defendant No.2 supported the contentions of defendants 1, 3 and 5. 9. Defendant No.6 filed a counter stating that he was elected as the President of the Society by the annual general body meeting of the Society held on 24.1.2018. He was misguided by defendant No.3 and a general body meeting of the Society was held on 27.5.2018 and he resigned from the post of the President. He proposed to convene the general body meeting of the Society on 7.2.2021 after issuing registered notices to all members of the Society. Then, defendant Nos.1 and 3, as President and Secretary of the governing committee, approached the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode, by filing O.S.No.38/2021 and obtained an injunction order restraining defendant No.6 from convening a general body meeting on 7.2.2021. The said order is challenged by defendant No.6 by filing an appeal before the District Court, Kozhikode, which is now pending before the I[st] Additional District Court as CMA.No.34/2021. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 had no authority or locus standi to convene the general body meeting of the Society. O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 7 10. The trial Court marked Exts.A1 and A2 on the side of the plaintiffs and Exts.B1 to B24 on the side of defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5. 11. After hearing both sides, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the contesting defendants. The trial Court also held that as the prayer in the suit was to declare the general body meeting of Nanminda High School Society held on 21.01.2021 as invalid and non est and also to declare that there is no validly elected governing body and office bearers for the Society, the interim prohibitory injunction as prayed for cannot be granted as it may amount to decree the suit. The trial Court held that granting prohibitory injunction as prayed for may cause irreparable injury and hardship to the defendants. The trial Court also held that if defendant Nos.1 to 5 are restrained from managing the Society, the entire functions of the school will be stalled. Based on the above findings, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.2/2022 as per order dated 24.9.2001 (Ext.P4). 12. The plaintiffs challenged Ext.P4 order by filing CMA.No.52/2021 before the District Court, Kozhikode under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 8 13. The District Court confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P5 judgment. The District Court held that the question as to the total number of members of the Society as on 21.1.2021 can be decided only after a full fledged trial in which both parties would adduce evidence in support of their contentions and it was not proper on the part of the Court to delve deep into such question of disputed fact and make a finding thereon in an appeal of this nature from an order of refusal of temporary injunction. Relying on Rule 4 of Ext.A1 bye-law, the District Court held that only members whose names are entered in the membership register are eligible to vote in the elections. The District Court held that 29 members who elected the governing committee of the Society on 21.1.2021 constituted a valid quorum as required under Rule 24 of Ext.A1 bye-law and defendant Nos. 1 to 5, who were elected as office bearers of the governing committee of the Society, have every right to remain in the office subject to the result of the suit. The Court held that balance of convenience is in favour of defendant Nos.1 to5 and if an injunction is granted, it would obviously result in irreparable injury to defendant Nos.1 to 5. The Court also accepted the view of the trial Court that as the Society is admittedly managing the Nanminda High School, granting of prohibitory injunction would give rise to a stalemate situation in the O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 9 functioning of the Society and the School. 14. Sri.B.G.Bhaskar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that Ext.P5 judgment of the Lower Appellate Court and Ext.P4 order of the Principal Munsiff's Court are against several settled principles of law and the exercise of judicial discretion by the courts below is perverse in nature. The learned counsel contended that going by Ext.A1 bye-law, irrespective of who is entitled to vote at a general body meeting, the number of members of the society cannot be less than 133 and therefore, the quorum is 34. The learned counsel contended that the Lower Appellate Court erred in adding the word 'living' to the bye-law to conclude that 29 satisfies the prescribed quorum. It is further contended that the Lower Appellate Court ought not to have interpolated the application of legal heir of a member in the matter of determination of the quorum. The learned counsel contended that when the Secretary of the Society becomes aware of the death of a member, it is his duty to nominate the person who will exercise the voting right on behalf of the inherited members. The learned counsel contended that the Lower Appellate Court appreciated the facts under the confusion that membership for the purpose of determining the quorum is equivalent to membership for the purpose of voting at the meeting. O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 10 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents Sri.T.R.Harikumar supported the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court contending that the total number of members of the Society as on 21.1.2021 was 65 as the legal heirs of many of the members of the Society who died were not brought on record in the register of the Society under Rule 4 of Ext.A1 bye-law. The learned counsel contended that, viewed in that context, 29 members elected in the governing committee of the Society constituted a valid quorum as required under Rule 4 of Ext.A1 bye-law. 16. Sri.Sreekumar Chelur, the learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent, supported the contentions of the petitioners. 17. The crux of the dispute centres around the questionwhat shall be the quorum in the general body of the Society to elect the governing committee ? The bye-law of the Society was marked as Ext.A1/P6(1). The relevant rules in the bye-law are extracted below:- “ xx xx xx 3. All persons above 18 years and who have subscribed Rs.100/or above or who have gifted properties movable or immovable worth Rs.100/- or above shall be eligible for the membership of the society. 4. A correct register shall be maintained in the committee's office and persons whose names are entered in such register of the time being alone shall be eligible to vote elections. O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 11 5. The right of member shall be alienable and heritable. xx xx 9. The Committee which is the Governing body shall be elected from themselves and it shall held office for three years. In case of death or resignation of member of the committee it shall be open to the committee to nominate any one from the general body of members and a member thus nominated shall hold office for the unexpired portion of three years. xx xx xx 12. The term of the manager will be 3 years or till a manager is elected by the committee. xx xx xx 15. One third of the member of the committee shall form a quorum. xx xx xx 21. In all matters civil and criminal the committee shall be represented by the President. xx xx xx 24. The general body members shall meet once in year and shall have power to ratify or cancel any decisions of the committee. One fourth of the members of the society shall form a quorum.” 18. There is a dispute regarding the total number of members in the Society. It is contended by the petitioners that the total members of the Society is 133, and going by Rule 24 of Ext.A1, the required quorum shall be 34. The challenge of the contesting respondents is that the total number of members as on the date of the O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 12 general body was only 65. After appreciating the rival contentions, the Lower Appellate Court concluded thus:- “It is true that in view of the above mentioned averment in paragraph No.4 of Ext.A2 it can reasonably be inferred that at one point of time the society had 133 members and said fact is evident from Ext.B19 and Ext.B2 membership register produced from the side of respondent No.1, 3 and 5. It is also true that in view of Rule 5 of Ext.A1 bye-law, the right of a member is heritable and if a member dies, the right of such deceased member in the society would be inherited by his/her legal heir/heirs. Based on this, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as the total number of members of the society had reached 133 at some point of time, the only way in which the said membership can get reduced is by resignation or expulsion of members and in the absence of any pleading or proof of any resignation and expulsion of members, it has to be inferred that the total number of members of the society remained at 133. But, in my view, there can be reduction in the total number of members due to other reasons also. For example, if a member of the society dies without any legal heirs, there can be reduction in total number of members of the society. Moreover, if a member of the society dies and his legal heir is a minor, then also, at least for a brief period, there can be reduction in total number of members of the society and it is more so when Rule 3 of Ext.A1 bye-law stipulates that a person would be entitled for membership in the society only if he is above the age of 18 years. There may be instances where a legal heir of deceased member of the society may not be interested to become a member of the Society. At this juncture, the relevance of Rule 4 of the bye-law comes into play. Rule 4 of the Ext.A1 bye-law provides as follows: _4. A correct register shall be maintained in the committee’s office and persons whose names are_ O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 13 _entered in such register of the time being alone shall be eligible to vote elections._ Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act 1860 is also relevant at this juncture and hence extracted below: ## _**15. Member defined disqualified members** .-_ _For the purpose of this Act a member of a society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to the rules and regulations thereof, shall have paid a subscription, or shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof, and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations;_ _But in all proceedings under this Act no person shall be entitled to vote or be counted as a member whose subscription at the time shall have been in arrears for a period exceeding three months. (underline supplied)_ So, section 15 of the Societies Registration Act 1860 indicates that admission of a person as a member of the society shall be in accordance with rules and regulations of the society. On a combined reading of Rule 4 and 28 of Ext.A1 bye-law, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn by this court is that only members whose name are entered in the membership register of the time being alone shall be eligible to vote in the elections.” (Quoted verbatim from the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court) 19. Relying on Exts.B25 & B26, the Lower Appellate Court concluded that going by the procedures followed in the Society for entering the names of legal heirs of the deceased members, whose names are not entered in the membership register, it could not be contended that such legal heirs whose names are not entered in the O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 14 membership register also would be considered in the meeting for deciding the quorum. Relying on Ext.B24, the minutes of the general body meeting of the Society held on 27.10.2019, the Lower Appellate Court found that there were only 74 members in the Society due to the death of members of the Society. Relying on Ext.B2, membership register, the Lower Appellate Court held that there were only 65 members as on 21.1.2021, and therefore, 29 members who elected the governing body of the Society on 21.1.2021 constituted valid quorum as required under Rule 24 of Ext.A1 bye-law. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that interpretation of Ext.A1/P6 bye-law alone is required to resolve the lis. 21. The legal right assailed by the plaintiffs and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain. Those rights are to be established at the trial on evidence. 22. The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the Court. While exercising the discretion, the Court applies the following tests - (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 15 if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need to the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from violation of his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies.(Vide: _**M/s. Gujarat**_ _**Bottling Company Ltd.** v._ _**Coca Cola Company (AIR 1995 SC 2372, P.46)**_ **.** It appears that the trial Court has not exercised the discretion arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely and the Court has not ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of injunction. O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 16 23. On the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance in **Wander Ltd.** v. **Antox India P. Ltd. [1990 (Supp.) SCC 727]** the Apex Court held thus:- “The appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of the first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion.” This view was reiterated by the Apex Court in **Seema Arshad Zaheer** ## v. **Municipal Corporation (2006 (4) KLT 65)** . 24. In the present case, I am of the view that the Lower Appellate Court cannot be found fault with when it chose not to interfere with the order of the trial Court. O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 17 25. Going by the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that the disputed questions of fact can be decided only after a fullfledged trial. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate or reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. 26. In **K.V.S.Ram** v. **Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39]** the Apex Court held that in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. ## 27. In **Sobhana Nair K.N.** v. **Shaji S.G.Nair (2016 (1)** **KHC 1)** a Division Bench of this Court held that the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 18 Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. ## 28. In **M/s.Garment Craft** v. **Prakash Chand Goel** ## **[(2022) 4 SCC 81]** the Apex Court held thus:- “.. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 29. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and judgment. The Original Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 30. However, having regard to the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that a direction is to be issued to the trial Court to O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 19 dispose of the original suit and the other connected cases within three months from this day. All policy decisions taken by the present governing body of the Society shall be subject to the result of the suit. The defendants or anybody acting on behalf of the present committee shall not make any appointment in the School till the disposal of the suit. It is further made clear that the findings of the Lower Appellate Court were only for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory application and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **K.BABU Judge** TKS O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 20 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 377/2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:`** - **`Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 38 OF 2021, DATED 04-02-2021 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKKODU.`** - **`Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 173 OF 2021, ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKKODU-1`** - **`Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A. NO. 2/2021 IN O.S. NO.173/2021 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT KOZHIKKODE-1`** - **`Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2/2021 IN O.S. NO. 173/2021 DATED 24-09-2021 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT KOZHIKKODE-1`** - **`Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A. NO. 52/2021 DATED 06.01.2022 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-III, KOZHIKKODE.`** - **`Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAW OF THE NANMINDA HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY RULES AND REGULATIONS, SOCIETY`** ## **`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:`** - **`Exhibit-R5(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-03-2021 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN O.S.NO.38 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT-I, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`Exhibit-R5(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 25-112021 IN CMA 52 OF 2021, FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 5 BEFORE THE ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE’S COURT-III, KOZHIKODE.`** - **`Exhibit-R5(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2021 IN WP(C)NO.8241 OF 2021.`** - **`Exhibit-R5(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-04-2022 IN I.A.1/2021 IN O.S.132/2021 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE.`** 21 O.P.(C)No.377 of 2022 ``` Exhibit-R5(e)A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM3/5335/2021/DGE DATED 12.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION. ``` TKS