Renu Mathew W/o Mathew Chakola v. Corporation of Cochin (Southern Regional Office) and Secretary, Corporation of Kochi, Southern Regional Office, Addl. Respondents: Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 / 22ND MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 1325 OF 2014** ## **PETITIONER:** RENU MATHEW W/O. MATHEW L.CHAKOLA, DIRECTOR, CHAKOLAS HOMES(P)LTD., D 12D, CHAKOLAS HABITAT, WILLINGDON ENCLAVE, PANDIT KURUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA, KOCHI-682 013. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 CORPORATION OF COCHIN SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF KOCHI, SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006. ## **ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4** ADDL.R3 THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (KERALA) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SASTHA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 4-6-2014 IN I.A. NO.7196 2014) W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 2 ADDL.R4 THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT,FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 2012-2019 IN I.A. 3/2019 IN W.P.(C) 1325/2014) BY ADVS. SHRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION R3 BY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, SC, KCZMA R3 BY SRI.K.R.SUNIL, SC, KCZMA R4 BY SRI.S.MANU (ASGI) SRI VISHNU J., CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2021, THE COURT ON 11.02.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 3 ## **T.R.RAVI,J.** **-----------------------------** ## **W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014** **-------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 11th day of February, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** Heard Sri Joseph Kodianthara, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri Abraham Joseph Markos on behalf of the petitioner, Sri M.P.Prakash, Standing Counsel for the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Shri.K.Janardhana Shenoy, learned Standing Counsel for the Kochi Municipal Corporation, and Sri S.Manu, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India on behalf of the 4[th] respondent. 2. The petitioner has constructed a residential apartment building named 'Lakeside” in an extent of 31.75 Ares of land comprised in Sy.Nos.200/1, 200/3, 200/6, 1503, 1576 and 1577 of Edakochi Village, Kochi Taluk. After getting Ext.P3 aviation clearance from the Southern Naval Command on 23.7.2009 and getting Ext.P2 certificate dated 14.8.2009 from the Fire and Rescue Services, the petitioner applied for a building permit to the 2[nd] respondent. The W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 4 2[nd] respondent granted Ext.P1 building permit on 7.9.2009. The permission was for construction of a building with ground plus sixteen floors and a terrace floor. The Pollution Control Board granted Ext.P5 consent to establish which was valid till 18.12.2013. The Southern Naval Command extended their clearance certificate by Ext.P4 on 21.5.2012. Similarly, the 2[nd] respondent renewed the building permit upto 16.9.2015 as per Ext.P6 dated 29.9.2012. Ext.P9 challan would go to show that the petitioner applied for the final NOC from the Fire and Rescue Services on 17.5.2013. Ext.P8 is the application submitted by the petitioner to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board on 30.9.2013 for consent to operate. 3. While so, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P11 to the petitioner on 29.11.2013 asking her to stop construction for the reason that she had not submitted the aviation clearance, CRZ clearance and NOC from the Pollution Control Board. It can be seen from Ext.P11 that the stop memo was issued on the basis of a report dated 6.11.2013 of the Assistant Executive Engineer. Ext.P11 was followed by Ext.P10 notice dated 4.12.2013, asking her to show cause why the permit should not be cancelled for the reason that the documents referred to in Ext.P11 had not been submitted along with W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 5 her application. The petitioner submitted Ext.P12 reply on 7.1.2014 and on 13.1.2014, she filed the writ petition. The respondents 1 and 2 alone were parties to the writ petition at the time it was filed, since the relief sought for was only against them. 4. On 4.3.2014, a statement was filed by the Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in which it was stated that at the time of applying for renewal of the building permit, the petitioner had not produced the clearance certificate as per the CRZ notification of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as CRZ 2011) and that the Government of Kerala had issued Ext.R1(a) circular on 26.1.2013 making it mandatory to produce such clearance. On the basis of the above statement, this Court directed the petitioner to implead the 3[rd] respondent as party to the writ petition. 5. Pending the writ petition, a discrepancy in the construction effected by the petitioner regarding the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was pointed out. It was contended by the 3[rd] respondent that the FAR that was applicable at the time of the building permit was 1.5. The petitioner has thereupon produced Ext.P27 letter issued by the 3rd respondent themselves to the Secretary of the 2nd respondent with respect to another residential apartment complex named W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 6 M/s.Chakolas Habitat, which was on 5596.05 sq.mts with an estimated cost of Rs.8.68 crores, stating that the total plinth area of the proposed construction is 5596.05 Sq.Metres and the estimated cost is Rs.8.68 Crores and the FAR of the construction is 2.5. It can be seen from the letter that the authority has granted CRZ clearance to the project at their meeting held on 21.8.2012. While the writ petition was pending, the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) wrote Ext.P15 letter dated 24.2.2016 to the Member Secretary of the 3[rd] respondent, wherein it is specifically stated that so far as residential projects in CRZ in Kochi Municipal Corporation are concerned, 2.5 will be the FAR. The letter was issued in connection with an application for construction of a house by Smt.Annie, Smt.Premy and Smt.Isabella Kalappurackal in Chakolas Colony. On 6.5.2016, the 1[st] respondent Corporation issued Ext.P26 certificate to the Member Secretary of the 3[rd] respondent wherein it has been stated/certified that during 1991, 1984 Kerala Building Rules was in force and FAR was 1.5, but, the Corporation has granted FAR upto 2.5 during 1991 on the basis of Government exemption. On 28.6.2016, the MoEF&CC issued Ext.P17 wherein it was again clarified that the FAR allowable for residential projects in W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 7 CRZ of Kochi Municipal Corporation will be 2.5. Ext.P17 has again been produced as Ext.P25 in the writ petition. Exts.P17/P25 have been issued by the MoEF to the 3rd respondent, with reference to another residential project by name Kent Baywatch, Edakochi, coming under the CRZ. After noticing that as per the Kerala Building Rules, 1984, 1.5 was the general FAR for the entire State of Kerala and in Kochi Corporation FAR upto 2.5 was granted on exemption orders of the State Government, the Ministry clarified that a minimum of 2.5 FAR is permissible, since the property comes within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kochi Corporation. 6. The parties in whose favour the clarifications had been issued as per Exts.P15 and P17/P25 had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.27370 of 2016 which was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 23.9.2016. This Court considered the general FAR of 1.5 applicable to the State and the exemption granted to the Kochi Corporation as 2.5 and noting that the petitioner's request was only for 1.97 FAR and the authority itself had sanctioned the petitioner's request to the extent of 1.99, the Corporation was directed to consider the revised plan ensuring the FAR does not exceed that permitted in the decision in the agenda as Item W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 8 No.49.3.7 relating to the petitioner's project. While so, the issue came up for consideration before the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai (NGT for short) in Appeal No.42 of 2017, and the NGT by order Ext.P30, set aside the order limiting the FAR to 1.5 as on 19.2.1991, and directed the 3[rd] respondent to reconsider the application proposed by the appellant therein claiming FAR of 3.98. It is to be noted that FAR 3.98 comes within the range permissible under Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Ext.P31 produced by the petitioner is the minutes of the 87[th] meeting of the 3[rd] respondent wherein the 3[rd] respondent considered the Ext.P13 order of the NGT and decided to refer the matter to the MoEF. 7. On 6.3.2018, the MoEF issued a notification whereby the CRZ notification of 2011 was amended by including provision for post facto clearance for permissible activities. As per the amendment, all activities which are otherwise permissible under the provisions of the notification, but have commenced construction without prior clearance, would be considered for regularisation only in such cases wherein the project applied for regularisation within the specified time and the projects which are in violation of CRZ norms would not be regularised. It is further stated that in such W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 9 cases where constructions have commenced before the date of Ext.P16 notification without requisite CRZ clearance, they will be considered only by the MoEF provided that the request for such regularisation is received in the said Ministry by 30.6.2018. On the strength of Ext.P16, the petitioner filed an application before the Ministry on 9.6.2018 which has been produced as Ext.P18. On 14.8.2018, the petitioner got a reply from the MoEF wherein it is stated that for the purpose of considering the post facto CRZ clearance, recommendations of the State Coastal Zone Management Authority was required and that certain other documents as required under paragraph 4.2 of CRZ 2011 were also required. The petitioner thereupon approached the 3[rd] respondent for necessary recommendation as per Ext.P20 dated 29.5.2019, which was followed by Ext.P21 dated 1.10.2019. When orders were not forthcoming, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4 of 2019 in this writ petition in which, this Court on 20.12.2019 issued a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P20 and P21 representations and forward the recommendations to the additional 4[th] respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 10 8. Thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent considered the application in its 170[th] meeting held on 26.2.2020 and it was noticed that the permissible FAR applicable to Kochi Corporation as per CRZ notification 2011 is 1.5 and this fact shall be informed to the Standing Counsel for the KCZMA to apprise this Court. Ext.P28 is the proceedings of the 3[rd] respondent dated 18.3.2020 whereby it was decided to delegate the consideration of such applications to the District Level Committee. Thereafter, at the meeting held on 2.7.2021 and 3.7.2021, the 3[rd] respondent considered the application submitted by the petitioner and rejected the same for the reason that the allowable limit of FAR under the CRZ notification 2011 has been exceeded. The petitioner thereafter amended the writ petition including challenges to the orders issued pending the writ petition on the basis of interim directions of this Court. 9. The prayers in the writ petition which are relevant at present are prayer b(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) and prayer c which are reproduced below. b(i). Call for the records relating to the decision taken by the additional 3[rd] respondent evidenced by its 107[th] Meeting, and in particular, Agenda Item No.107.03.04 and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 11 writ, order or direction. b(ii). Declare that Ext.P1 building permit granted to the petitioner by the Corporation of Kochi with FAR 2.39 is legal and proper by issue of a writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction. b(iii). Call for the records relating to the decision of the additional 3[rd] respondent KCZMA at its 114[th] meeting held on 02.07.2021 and 03.07.2021 in particular Agenda Item No.114.03.29 in File No.701/A1/2020/KCAMA and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order' b(iv). direct the additional 3[rd] respondent KCZMA to recommend the petitioner's project to MoEF for post facto clearance in terms of Ext.P16 notification and Exts.P18 to 20; and c. declare that the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the CRZ notification 2011 as on the date of issue of Ext.P1 building permit govern the right of the petitioner in respect of the construction made by the petitioner.” 10. The counsel for the 3rd respondent contends that the construction of the building is in violation of the CRZ Regulations, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as CRZ 1991) and as such, the case of the petitioner cannot be recommended for the purpose of post facto clearance. According to him, the building permit was issued on 17.9.2009. As per Rule 23 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 12 1999, any land development or redevelopment or building construction or reconstruction in any area notified by the Government of India as a coastal regulation zone under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and rules made thereunder, shall be subject to the restrictions contained in the said notification as amended from time to time. The counsel submits that as on the date of the grant of the building permit, the CRZ 1991 was in force. Clause 3.2 of CRZ 1991 stipulates that the activities enumerated thereunder requires clearance from the MoEF. Clause 3.2(v) stipulates that activities with investment of Rs.5 Crore or more will come within the cases where clearance of MoEF is required. The area in question comes under CRZ-II and as per CRZ 1991, in areas under CRZ-II, buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road or landward side of existing authorised structure and it will be subject to the existing Local Town and Country Planning Regulations including existing norms of floor space index/floor area ratio. It is submitted that even under CRZ 2011, the same stipulation continues, since CRZ 2011 makes it very clear that FAR as in 1991 is to be followed. Regarding the applicable FAR, the counsel submits that in 1991 when CRZ 1991 was issued, what W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 13 was applicable was the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 and as per Rule 17 of the said Rules, for residential buildings, the FAR is to be 1.5. The counsel also referred to Rule 5 of the Building Rules, 1984 which provided for exemption of buildings from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Rules, by the Government. It is submitted that Rule 5 only contemplates grant of exemption for an individual building and not for any other purpose. It is hence submitted that so long as the building in question was not granted an exemption by the Government of Kerala, the FAR applicable can only be 1.5. The counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **KCZMA v. Maradu Municipality** reported in **[2019 (2) KLT 835 (SC)]** wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where no prior clearance has been obtained by the project proponent, the building permit issued will be _ultra vires_ and _non est_ . 11. The contentions put forward by both sides have been considered in detail. As already observed, the prayers that are surviving are prayers b(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) and prayer c. Prayers b(i) and b(iii) are for quashing Exts.P23 and P29 which are decisions taken at the meetings of the 3rd respondent. In Ext.P23, it was decided that the permissible FAR at the time of the construction is W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 14 1.5 and that the said factual position shall be informed to the Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent to apprise this Court. In Ext.P29, the 3rd respondent declined consideration on the ground that FAR exceeded the allowable limit as per CRZ notification 2011. The basis of the above decisions is that the FAR as per the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 was 1.5 and the 1984 Rules was the Rule applicable in 1991 when CRZ 1991 was issued. Even though the building permit in the case on hand is one of 2009 and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 had by then come into force, as far as the CRZ notification was concerned, the view taken by the 3rd respondent is that what was applicable is the FAR available in the 1984 Rules. 12. On a total consideration of the issue as to what is the FAR that should be applied, I find that the petitioner is fully justified in her contention that 2.5 should be the FAR applied and the contention of the 3rd respondent that 1.5 should be applied is not sustainable. Ext.P27 is a document authored by the 3rd respondent themselves. As early as on 1.10.2012, with reference to another residential project, the 3rd respondent had approved a construction with estimated cost of Rs.8.68 crores with 2.5 FAR. The decision was W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 15 taken on the meeting of the 3rd respondent held on 21.8.2012. At that point of time also, CRZ 1991, CRZ 2011 and Kerala Building Rules 1984 were applicable. As can be seen from Ext.P15 dated 24.2.2016, the Corporation of Cochin had on 22.1.2016 as per letter-cum-certificate No.MOP4-002229/16 received by the 3rd respondent, certified that the FAR allowable was 2.5. By Ext.P26 dated 6.5.2016, the Cochin Municipal Corporation had again confirmed to the 3rd respondent that FAR of 2.5 was applicable on the basis of Government exemption. By Ext.P17/P25, the MoEF had addressed the 3rd respondent stating that a minimum FAR of 2.5 is permissible in Cochin Corporation, as per the provisions of CRZ 1991. In Ext.P24 judgment in W.P.(C)No.27370/2016, this Court had taken note of the above aspect that the FAR applicable was 2.5 and directed the Corporation to consider the revised plan submitted by the petitioner therein ensuring that the FAR does not exceed 1.99 on the facts of that case. The NGT also had in Ext.P30 order, set aside an order insisting on 1.5 FAR and directed to grant permit for a higher FAR. In view of the orders issued by the 3rd respondent themselves, directions issued by the MoEF and the categoric pronouncement of this Court to the effect that the FAR applicable in W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 16 Corporation of Cochin is 2.5, it is not open to the 3rd respondent to take a different stand at this point of time. The 3rd respondent who was the 1st respondent in W.P.(C)27370 of 2016, had accepted Ext.P4 judgment of this Court. In the above circumstances, the view expressed in Exts.P23 and P29 cannot be justified. The 3 rd respondent is bound to proceed on the basis that the FAR permissible in Corporation of Cochin at the relevant point of time was 2.5 and forward their recommendations to the MoEF taking note of the fact that the building constructed by the petitioner is having an FAR of 2.39 which is less than the permissible FAR. It is worthwhile to note that the FAR was increased to 4 in the 1999 Building Rules. 13. Post facto clearance was introduced into the CRZ notification as per Ext.P16 amendment. As per the amendment, in cases where the constructions have commenced before 6.3.2018, the post facto clearance has to be considered by the MoEF & CC. The role of the 3rd respondent is to forward the application with their recommendations regarding the regularisation. Going by Ext.P16, it would appear that an application has to be forwarded through the 3 rd respondent. By Ext.P19, the MoEF informed the petitioner to apply W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 17 along with the specific recommendations of the concerned State Coastal Zone Management Authority. The action of the 3rd respondent is merely considering the issue as to the FAR applicable in Cochin Corporation and rendering a finding (which is as already stated, against their own earlier order, directions of the MoEF, judgment of this Court in which they were a party and order of the NGT) is not legally sustainable. The decisions taken at the meetings of the 3rd respondent as evidenced by Exts.P23 and P29, to the extent it relates to the FAR applicable to the building constructed by the petitioner is concerned cannot hence be legally sustained. Moreover, going by Ext.P16, the 3rd respondent is not expected to reject the application, which is the function of the MoEF. Regarding prayer b(ii), the petitioner seeks a declaration that Ext.P1 building permit granted by the Corporation with FAR of 2.39 is legal and proper. The above prayer is a prayer consequential to the finding regarding what was the permissible FAR in Corporation of Cochin at the relevant point of time. For the reasons already stated above, I find that the FAR permissible in Corporation of Cochin at the relevant point of time was 2.5. In view of the said finding, it is declared that Ext.P1 building permit granted by the Corporation to the extent of W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 18 approving an FAR of 2.39 is legal and proper. It is for the MoEF to consider and pass orders on the application for regularisation of the construction, by granting post fact clearance. 14. Regarding prayer c, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and CRZ, 2011 as on the date of issue of Ext.P1 building permit governs the rights of the petitioner. In view of my finding regarding the prayers b(i) to b(iii) that the FAR applicable is 2.5, there is no necessity to issue any declaration as prayed for in prayer c. 15. As far as the contention of the respondents that the building permit itself is illegal is concerned, in **Maradu Municipality (supra)** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of Rule 23(4) of the 1999 Building Rules and observed that it is necessary for the Local Authority to follow the restrictions imposed by the CRZ notification as amended from time to time and it is not open to the authority in view of the notification of 1991, to grant any kind of permission without concurrence of Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority. The case that was being considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was one where such a concurrence or permission had not been granted by the 3rd respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 19 Court has not considered the question of post facto clearance by the MoEF as per clause 4.3 of CRZ, 2011 as amended by Ext.P16. In this case, this Court is concerned with an application for post facto clearance. I am hence of the opinion that the dictum in **Maradu Municipality (supra)** could not be applied in this case. 16. In the light of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner; (i) The decisions taken at the meetings of the 3rd respondent as evidenced by Exts.P23 and P29, to the extent they relate to the FAR applicable to the building constructed by the petitioner is concerned are quashed. (ii) It is declared that the FAR applicable in Cochin Corporation at the time of issuance of Ext.P1 Building Permit was 2.5. (iii) The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for post facto clearance and forward the same to the 4th respondent with their recommendations as required under clause 4.3 of CRZ, 2011. While making such recommendations, the 3rd respondent shall consider the project as if it is W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 20 constructed on the basis of an FAR that was permissible in Corporation of Cochin at the time of issuance of Ext.P1 Building Permit, for the reasons already stated above. The necessary action as aforesaid shall be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (iv) There will be a further direction to the additional 4th respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for post facto clearance, and pass final orders regarding post facto clearance, after hearing the petitioner, within three months after receipt of the application along with the recommendations of the 3rd respondent. Sd/- **T.R.RAVI JUDGE** dsn W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 21 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1325/2014** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DTD.17.9.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES DTD.14.8.2009. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY - SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND FOR INTIAL AVIATION CLEARANCE DTD.23.7.2009. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND FOR EXTENSION OF INTIAL AVIATION CLEARANCE DTD.21.5.2012. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD.10.6.2011. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL MEMO OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD.29.9.2012 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COMPLETED BUILDING 'LAKE SIDE'. - EXHIBIT P7(a) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COMPLETED BUILDING 'LAKE SIDE'. - EXHIBIT P7(b) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COMPLETED BUILDIG 'LAKE SIDE'. - EXHIBIT P7(c) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COMPLETED BUILDING 'LAKE SIDE'. - EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.30.9.2013 FOR CONSENT TO OPERATE FILED BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. - EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE CHALLAN DTD.17.5.2013 FOR THE FINAL NOC FROM THE FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES. - EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.4.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PROPOSING TO CANCEL THE PERMIT. - EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DTD.29.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DIRECTING IMMEDIATE STOPPAGE OF CONSTRUCTION. W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 22 EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF REPLY DTD.7.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14TH SEPTEMBER 2006 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST. - EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE PROPOSED CRZ AMENDMENTS - 2010. - EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.02.2016 ISSUED BY MOEF & CC. - EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 06/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI - EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28/06/2016 FROM THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI - EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 09-06-2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI. - EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14-08-2018 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI TO THE PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29-05-2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MEMEBER SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY(KCZMA), TRIVANDRUM WITH COPY TO THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI. - EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01-10-2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MEMEBER SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (KCZMA) - EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 20/12/2019 IN IA NO.4/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO. 1325/2014 - EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 107TH MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26/2/2020 W.P.(C)No.1325 OF 2014 23 EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 23/9/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.27370/2016 EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF CLASSIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MOEF DATED 28/06/2016 EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT CORPORATION OF KOCHI DATED 06.05.2016 EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 01.10.2012 OF THE KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.03.2020 ISSUED BY KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORIT Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE KCZMA (ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT) DECISIONS TAKEN ON 02.07.2021 AND 03.07.2021 AND IN PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM NO.114.03.29 IN FILE NO.701/A1/2020/KCZMA. Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2017 OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI, IN APPEAL NO.42/2017 (S2) Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 87TH MEETING HELD ON 28.06.2017 AS AGENDA ITEM NO.87.04.17 IN FILE NO.4787/A2/2017/KCZMA. ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** EXT.R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCLE DATED 26.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA