Ramadas G. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.36733 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` RAMADAS G., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O K. M. GOPALA PILLAI (LATE), SARASWATHY BHAVANAM, PALLARIMANGALAM P. O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 690107 ``` ``` BY ADVS. N.SATHEESH PRIYA CAROL ARYA M.A. ANJU DILEEP ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003`** - **`2 THE SECRETARY,`** ``` TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 ``` - **`3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689121`** - **`4 SUMESH, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SUMA NIVAS, ALUMPEEDIKA OCHIRA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690547`** - **`5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 689121`** - **`6 ADDL. R6. THE SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD AUDIT, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 IS`** 2 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 ``` SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 06.11.2023. ``` ## **`7 M. S. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,`** ``` (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) MOHANAVILASOM, ELAKOLLOOR P.O. , KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA -689661 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R7 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 ``` ## **`8 MANIKANDAN,`** ``` (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) KOTTALAYIL, CMC-23, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA - 688524 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R8 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 ``` ``` 9 GEETHA DEVI T. R., (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DAKSHINA, KODIYETTUKARA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPUZHA -689121 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R9 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 ``` ``` BY ADVS. G.BIJU G MANU ROY NO ADVOCATE PRAVEEN H HARIKUMAR DEVADAS H. MALLAN(K/000926/2008) A.K.NESLIN(K/1420/2020) ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SRI S.RAJMOHAN – SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, who is a registered B class contractor, who had undertaken various civil and electrical works for the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3, not to proceed further with Ext.P1 notice dated 01.11.2023 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Chengannur, inviting short quotations in respect of the works mentioned therein; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to consider Ext.P5 representation dated 04.11.2023 made by the petitioner, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to re-tender the works mentioned in Ext.P1 so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the tender process. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner had undertaken various civil and electrical works for the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board for the past 33 years. Though he had completed all the processes for the submission of quotations as per Ext.P1 notice inviting short quotations issued by 4 ## W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer, he was denied the opportunity to participate in the tender process as his sealed quotations were snatched away, just before submission of the same, by the 4[th] respondent contractor, who also participated in the same process. Later, on Ext.P2 complaint dated 03.11.2023 made by the petitioner, the 5[th] respondent Station House Officer, Chengannur Police Station, recovered his sealed quotations from the 4[th] respondent. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the denial of an opportunity for the petitioner to participate in the tender process was due to the encouraging attitude of the officials of the 1[st] respondent Board towards unfair practices and criminal activities for scaring away contractors for awarding the works to persons of their choice. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 04.11.2023 before respondents 2 and 3 requesting to cancel the tender process in which unfair practices were followed and to proceed further legally. 3. On 06.11.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. The Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit, was _suo motu_ impleaded as additional 6[th] 5 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 5[th] respondent Station House Officer and for the additional 6[th] respondent Senior Deputy Director. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 4[th] respondent, returnable by 07.11.2023. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Senior Government Pleader were directed to get instructions. 4. On 07.11.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to file a counter affidavit by the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an application to implead those, other than the 4[th] respondent, who have participated in the tender process. The learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions from the additional 6[th] respondent on the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1. 5. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking an order to implead additional respondents 7 to 9. On 13.11.2023, notice by special messenger was ordered in that interlocutory application, returnable by 15.11.2023. That interlocutory application was allowed by the order dated 15.11.2023. On that day, the learned 6 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that work in respect of items 1 to 3 in Ext.P1 notice of Pandalam Valiyakoikkal Devaswom has already commenced. The contract sanction is pending in respect of items 4 and 5. 6. The 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer has filed a counter affidavit dated 10.11.2023. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus; “4. It is submitted that the petitioner is a contractor under Travancore Devaswom Board, who usually participates in the tenders published by Travancore Devaswom Board. On 01.11.2023 as per Ext.P1, short quotations are invited for five works by fixing the last date of submission of quotations on 03.11.2023 at 3.00 p.m. The works are of an urgent nature, which have to be completed before the commencement of Mandalam Makaravilakku Festival-1199 ME. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner came to the office of the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board Works Department, Chengannur, at 10.30 a.m. and received the quotation forms. Four other contractors also received the quotation forms before 1.00 p.m. The persons who received quotation forms pursuant to Ext.P1 are as follows: - (1) Sri. Ramadas G., Saraswathy Bhavan, Pallarimangalam P.O., Mavelikkara. - (2) Sri. Sumesh R., Sumanivas, Alumpedika, Oachira. - (3) Sri. K. Manikandan, Kottalayil, CMC-23, Cherthala P.O., Alappuzha. 7 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 - (4) Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair, Mohanavilasam, Elakolloor, Konni. - (5) Smt. Geetha Devi T.R., Dakshina, Kodiyattukara, Chengannur. 6. It is submitted that at around 2.00 p.m. some loud noise was heard outside the office. I have enquired about what is happening outside. The contractors raised arguments against each other and Sri.Ramadas said that his sealed quotations were forcibly taken away by somebody. After some time, he left the office premises. By 2.45 p.m. two policemen came there along with the petitioner and had a discussion with other contractors and took the quotations from a car parked in the office premises. The police did not contact the 3[rd] respondent or any staff in his office. At 3.05 p.m., the petitioner contacted me over the telephone and asked whether he could submit his quotations. I replied that the time fixed for receipt of quotations as per Ext.P1 is over and hence he cannot accept it. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation on 04.11.2023 requesting to cancel the quotation procedures. All the quotations received pursuant to Ext.P1 were forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Mavelikkara. The details of the works notified in Ext.P1 and the quotations received are as follows: Ext.P1 notice was published on 01.11.2023 with the date of opening 03.11.2023. Quotations (CNGR Q-41 to CNGR Q-45) (a) Pandalam Valiyakoikkal Devaswom in Aranmula Group - providing a wooden platform at jaggery godown in connection with M&M festival, 1199 ME. The estimate was submitted to Executive Engineer Mavelikkara-No.415/2023 8 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 on 17.10.2023. Administrative sanction from Executive Engineer No.25/CNG/23-24 was obtained on 28.10.2023. The Executive Engineer issued a direction to invite quotations on 30.10.2023 and the same was received in my office on 01.11.2023. (b) Pandalam Valiyakoikkal Devaswom in Aranmula Group - certain urgent works for the functioning of Annadhanamandapam and other various works in connection with M&M festival, 1199 ME. The estimate was submitted to Executive Engineer Mavelikkara - No.444/2023 on 26.10.2023. Administrative sanction from Executive Engineer No.26/CNG/23-24 was obtained on 30.10.2023. The Executive Engineer issued a direction to invite quotations on 30.10.2023 and the same was received in my office on 01.11.2023. (c) Pandalam Valiyakoikkal Devaswom in Aranmula Group - urgent repairs and maintenance to Thirumuttam floor and providing barricade for Thiruvabharanam procession in connection with M&M festival, 1199 ME. The estimate was submitted to Executive Engineer Mavelikkara-No.448/2023 on 30.10.2023. Administrative sanction from Executive Engineer No.27/CNG/23-24 was obtained on 30.10.2023. The Executive Engineer issued a direction to invite quotations on 30.10.2023 and the same was received in my office on 01.11.2023. (d) Construction of Nadapandal at Arathakandan Swamy Temple in Aranmula Group. Tender invited at Executive Engineer's Office No.EEM/ET-50/2023-2024 on 12.07.2023. Since there was no response re-tender notification was issued by the Executive Engineer, vide notification 9 ## W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 No.EEM/ET-54/2023-2024 on 21.08.2023 and nobody responded to re-tender notification also. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer directed me to issue a notice calling for quotations. (e) Chengannur Devaswom in Aranmula Group - urgent repairs and maintenance to the Ulsavabalippura roof. The estimate was submitted to Executive Engineer MavelikkaraNo.288/2023 on 29.07.2023. Administrative sanction from Executive Engineer No.24/CNG/23-24 was obtained on 25.10.2023. The Executive Engineer directed me to invite quotations. 8. It is submitted that the works notified as per Ext.P1 are urgent works, which are to be completed before the commencement of the M&M festival, 1199 ME. The petitioner responded to Ext.P1 by obtaining the quotation forms, had deliberations with other contractors in submitting quotations and has filed this writ petition because of their inter-se disputes. Therefore, he is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.” 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 5[th] respondent and additional 6[th] respondent, and the learned counsel for additional respondents 7 to 9. 8. During the course of arguments, it is pointed out by the 10 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that the 4[th] respondent, who alleged to have snatched away the tender documents of the petitioner, on 03.11.2023, is not the successful bidder in respect of any of the items included in Ext.P1 notice. The additional 8[th] respondent has been awarded with the works, in respect of items 1 to 3 in Ext.P1 notice. The learned counsel for the additional 8[th] respondent would submit that the said respondent has already commenced the said works, which will be completed by 16.11.2023. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that contract sanction in respect of the works, which are items 4 and 5 is yet to be issued. However, the learned counsel for the 9[th] respondent would submit that contract sanction in respect of the work, which is item 5 in Ext.P1 notice has already been granted and the said respondent is awaiting ‘anunja’ from the Tantri, for commencing the work. 10. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 11 ## W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. 11. Section 24 of the Act deals with maintenance of Devaswoms, etc., out of Devaswom Fund. As per Section 24, the Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund constituted under Section 25, maintain the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I [i.e. incorporated Devaswoms], keep in a state of good repair the temples, buildings, and other appurtenances thereto, administer the said Devaswoms in accordance with recognised usages, make contributions to other Devaswoms in or outside the State and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies and may provide for the educational upliftment, social and cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community. 12 ## W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 12. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. As per Section 31, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 14. Under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the temples are performed promptly; to monitor whether the administrative officials and the employees, and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in Sabarimala for the devotees. The Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund, maintain and administer the temples in accordance with recognised usages and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies. ## 15. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara** **[(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the 13 ## W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not, therefore, occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property if at all that was necessary, to the best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs. 21,500/-, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not 14 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 15 ## W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 16. In **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [(2013) 3 KLT 132]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court, therefore, is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957, viz. the powers of revision, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of _parens patriae_ will apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 17. In **the matter of Audit Report of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the year 1967-1968 (Sabarimala Improvement Fund)** reported in **[(1990) 1 KLT 347]** , in the context of Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious and 16 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 Charitable Institutions Act, a Division Bench of this Court reminded the President and Members of the Travancore Devaswom Board about their public accountability. In the said decision, it was made clear that it is for all persons concerned to see that greater vigil is exercised by the President and Members of the Board in the overall administration of the Board and in the collection and disbursement of funds. 18. The averments in the counter affidavit dated 10.11.2023 of the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer would show that, as stated in the writ petition, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to participate in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, as his sealed quotations were snatched away, just before submission of the same, by the 4[th] respondent contractor, in the office premises of the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer. Later, based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the 5[th] respondent Station House Officer, Chengannur Police Station, recovered the sealed quotations from the 4[th] respondent. Though the 4[th] respondent is not the successful bidder in respect of any of the works tendered as per Ext.P1 notice, the incident that happened in the office premises of the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer on 03.11.2023, during the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, requires a detailed 17 ## W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 enquiry by the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board headed by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer (Superintendent of Police). Similarly, the procedure adopted by the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer, Chengannur for awarding the works in Ext.P1 notice, by inviting short quotations, also requires detailed scrutiny by the additional 6[th] respondent Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent, it is stated that Ext.P1 notice was issued pursuant to the direction issued by the Executive Engineer, Mavelikkara, on 30.10.2023, to invite quotations. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct a detailed enquiry by the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board headed by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer (Superintendent of Police), with notice to the petitioner, the 4[th] respondent and additional respondents 7 to 9, on the incident that happened in the office premises of the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer on 03.11.2023, during the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, and take stringent action against the 4[th] respondent contractor, including initiation of proceedings for backlisting, if it is found in the enquiry that he had snatched away the tender 18 ## W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 documents of the petitioner, in order to prevent the petitioner from participating in the tender process. The additional 6[th] respondent Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit, is directed to conduct a detailed scrutiny of the procedure adopted by the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Engineer, Chengannur for awarding the works in Ext.P1 notice, by inviting short quotations, and submit a report before this Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, which shall be numbered as DBAR and listed before the Devaswom Bench. It is made clear that the entire expenditure in respect of the works awarded in the tender process pursuant to Ext.P1 notice shall be subjected to audit by the State Audit Department. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** MIN 19 W.P.(C)No.36733 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36733/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01/11/2023 INVITING SHORT QUOTATIONS BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03/11/2023 SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/11/2023 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES ON 03/11/2023 OF THE REGISTER OF PETITIONS IN THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/11/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED ATTACHED WITH EXHIBIT P5 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ```