Sarath Krishna S K and Arunlal S v Union of India and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 28051 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 SARATH KRISHNA S K AGED 27 YEARS S/O SOMALATHA DEVI S K., RESIDING AT SREE SANKARA NILAYAM, VELLANAD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695543. 2 ARUNLAL S, AGED 35 YEARS S/O SASIDHARAN NAIR L., THAMARABHAGATH THIRUVANANTHAPURAMAGED , VEEDU, KANNAMPALLI, VELLANAD, 695543. BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM MERCIAMMA MATHEW ASWIN.P.JOHN R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN PAUL BABY ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE RURBAN MISSION PROJECT, KRISHI BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI 110001. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 3 SECRETARY, FINANCE (INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC WORKS-B), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 4 SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 5 DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 2** COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003. 6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695043. 7 SECRETARY, VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VELLANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695543. 8 PRESIDENT, VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VELLANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695543. 9 AZHIKODE LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AZHIKODE, CHEKKAKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695043 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. Premsankar R ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) P.K.RAVISANKAR K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) K.SUDHINKUMAR S.K.ADHITHYAN SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SPL.GP - DEEPA K.R. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 3** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM,J** **--------------------W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 ------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are residents of Vellanad Grama Panchayat. Petitioners are public spirited individuals actively involved in public activities within the territorial jurisdiction of Vellanad Grama Panchayat. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the illegal actions of respondents 7 and 8, who are alleged to have been indulging in wastage and pilferage of public funds under the guise of undertaking developmental activities in the Panchayat. It is alleged that they have blatantly discarded the procedure to be adopted for execution of public works in the Panchayat. During 2015-2016, the Vellanad-Aryanad area was identified as a 'cluster' for developmental activities sought to be undertaken under the Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission, formulated by the Central **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 4** Government and funds are to be utilised to strengthen the economic, social and physical infrastructure facilities. A total amount of Rs.30 Crores was sanctioned for Vellanad-Aryanad cluster out of which the share of Vellanad Grama Panchayat was Rs.18 Crores. Though it was claimed that crores of rupees were spent under various heads, none of these projects fructified as the funds were siphoned off for purposes which were not intended under the project. Petitioners relying on Ext.P1 detailed work list, submitted that as per Column Nos.107 and 108 of Ext.P1 under the head sports infrastructure, the Panchayat proposed to utilize Rs.2.80 Crores sanctioned under the Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission for “Construction of building for economic upliftment of APL/BPL families” and claimed to have utilised Rs.8.31 lakhs for “Renovation of mini stadium”. In the name of renovation of mini stadium, an existing outdoor court was converted into an indoor stadium, allegedly suitable for volleyball. But the structure erected cannot be used as a volleyball ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 5** ground at all as the approved standard length, breadth etc., vary. More importantly, instead of indoor PVC Vinyl flooring or wooden flooring etc., the floor of the court has been completed using tiles, virtually making it impossible to utilise the area for any sports, as is evident from Ext.P2 photographs of the mini stadium. To the shock and dismay of the petitioners and sports lovers across Vellanad region, it came to light that the respondents 7 and 8 proposed to construct the 'building for economic upliftment of APL/BPL families', which is patently illegal and irregular as such constructions cannot come under the component of sports infrastructure and more so in an area which is being utilized for the last 35 years as stated above as Volleyball ground. The situation has resulted in derailing the existing sports activities in the Panchayat and that what is sought to be constructed under the guise of a building for upliftment of APL/BPL families is actually a shopping complex. The petitioners and other residents of the area submitted **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 6** representations before various authorities highlighting the need to retain the volleyball ground intact. The 4[th] respondent as per Ext.P3 communication intimated the Secretary of the Vellanad Grama Panchayat that only after purchasing the land for the volleyball ground and completing all the legal formalities for construction of the shopping complex should the existing ground be taken over. Admittedly, no such steps have been taken by the Panchayat till date. 3. Further contention of the petitioners is that a perusal of Ext.P4 photographs revealed that what is attempted to be constructed is a shopping complex that too under the guise of for upliftment of APL/BPL families, where in fact the work is being undertaken under the component and subcomponent mentioned therein are 'Sports Infrastructure' and 'Court (Tennis and Others)/Stadium for different Indoor and Outdoor Games'. While so, the 7[th] respondent, Secretary of the Grama Panchayat issued a Limited Quotation notice inviting quotation from accredited ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 7** agencies/labour contract societies etc, as per Ext.P5 notice dated 25.2.2022. It is the contention of the petitioners that when huge amount is involved in the project, i.e., Rs.2.80 Crores, to ensure a fair and transparent awarding of work, the Panchayat ought to have resorted to Open or E- Tender proceedings, instead of inviting quotations. In tune with the quotation process, the 9[th] respondent was chosen by the Panchayat to carry out the construction work as per Ext.P6 decision taken in the Panchayat Meeting held on 4.3.2022 and Ext.P7 selection notice was issued to the 9[th] respondent herein. The Government by Ext.P9 order dated 17.01.2022 have issued directions to the effect that all PMC selection shall be done among the qualified accredited agencies through a fair and transparent bidding process and that in case of Non-PMC, for estimates of work costing above Rs. 1 Crore, selection shall be done among the qualified accredited agencies through a fair and transparent bidding process. As the work in question is estimated to cost Rs. 2.80 crores, necessarily, in ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 8** terms of Ext.P9 Government order, work should have been awarded through a fair and transparent bidding process from among the qualified accredited agencies. As the 9[th] respondent is not included in the list of accredited agencies, and as Ext.P1 limited quotation was issued by the Panchayat after Ext.P9 Government order had come into existence, the decision to award the work to the 9[th] respondent, is per se illegal and liable to be interfered with. Yet another contention taken by the petitioners is that the 9[th] respondent society was required as per law to obtain work-in-hand certificate from the Office of the Assistant Registrar (General), Nedumanagad who has submitted a quotation as invited by the Panchayat. The Assistant Registrar (General), Nedumangad on inspecting the record found that the society had in fact submitted the quotation without first obtaining a work-in-hand certificate and that they have further delegated the work to one Renjith G.T., as is discernible from Ext.P10 letter dated 07.06.2022 issued by the Assistant Registrar ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 9** (General), Nedumangad. It is further submitted that a perusal of Ext.P10 would reveal that an advance amount of Rs.97,57,125/- which is one-third of the total estimate had already been released to the account of the 9[th] respondent society and the same has also been withdrawn, which is against the existing Government orders in this regard. Though it is stipulated in Ext.P3 that only after purchasing land for the volley ball ground, should any construction activity be carried out, without paying heed to the said direction and in violation of the direction issued by the Government in Ext.P9, on 26.08.2022 hasty steps were taken to commence the work. In the said circumstances petitioners submitted Ext.P11 representation before the authorities concerned. 4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in which it is specifically contended that Ext.P1 work list was subsequently revised in the year 2020-21 and the said revision was done as suggested by the State Level Empowered Committee (S.L.E.C.) chaired by the ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 10** Chief Secretary of Kerala in the meeting held on 19.02.2021. Thereafter, as per the decision taken in Ext.R8(a), minutes of the meeting held on 19.12.2021, Ext.R8(b) detailed revised work list was prepared on the basis of S.L.E.C. meeting. The request of the Panchayat for revision in the list of work was approved as per Ext.R8(b) decision whereby the project of construction of building for economic upliftment of APL/BPL families was approved and therefore the contention of the petitioners that the work has now been undertaken in violation of Ext.P1 work list is absolutely without any basis. 5. The other contention raised in the writ petition that going by Ext.P3, the Government has directed the Panchayat that they should purchase necessary playgrounds and only thereafter the construction could continue, is also not tenable. It is the case of the respondents that a stadium is already existing having an extent of 1.16 acres of land which is reflected in Ext.R8(f) asset register of the Vellanad Grama Panchayat and that the said ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 11** stadium could be used for any type of sports activities. Apart from that, the Panchayat has constructed an independent volley ball stadium on its own and that a construction of a badminton court is in progress. In view of the fact that three stadiums are already maintained in the Panchayat, the stipulation in Ext.P3 as is fully complied with by the respondents. The construction activities now undertaken has been objected due to political rivalry and the respondents had to approach this Court seeking police protection and this Court as per Ext.R8(l) interim order granted police protection for construction of the building. It is also submitted that the contractor has already started the construction and the Panchayat has already given advance amount to the contractor also and therefore they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5[th] respondent, Additional Development Commissioner, Commissionerate, Rural Development, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein it is ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 12** contended that in the case of Vellanad Grama Panchayat, no irregularities were found so far in respect of the project implemented by them. It is further stated that the projects were strictly followed and complied with the guidelines in the DPR. It is also stated that the respective funds are released by the Poverty Alleviation Unit, after strict verification of the said project and request from the concerned implementing authority/Grama Panchayat and till now no instance of misutilisation of any fund of SPMRM at Vellanad Panchayat has come to the notice of the 6[th] respondent. It is further stated that based on the Grama Panchayat resolution, the Secretary invited limited quotation for the work which amount to Rs.2.80 Crores and the award through limited quotation process is considered irregular. The work can be awarded to labour contract society, but the award of work to the labour contract society should be made through e-tender process and only authorised agencies recognised by the Government can be awarded work through a limited tender ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 13** process. _**In the present case award contract of Rs.2.80 Crores to Azhikode Labour Contract Society, 9[th] respondent herein, through limited quotation process is seen as an irregular action**_ _**on the part of the Grama Panchayat**_ . As per G.O. (P)No.77/2019/Fin. dated 04.07.2019 the 9[th] respondent is not included in the list of accredited agencies, for execution of public work. It is further stated that based on the limited quotation 3 firms submitted quotation for the work. Azhikode Labour Contract Co-operative Society being the lowest quotationer, the Grama Panchayat resolved to approve the quotation submitted by the firm as per resolution No.2(2) dated 04.03.2022. It is reiterated in the said counter affidavit that the award work to the 9[th] respondent through limited quotation process is considered highly irregular and therefore, the award of contract to the 9[th] respondent through a limited quotation process is against the Government Order G.O.(P) No.7/2022/Fin. dated 17.1.2022 which mandates that in case of non PMC for estimate of work costing ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 14** above Rs. 1 Crore, selection shall be done among the qualified accredited agencies through a fair and transparent bidding process, according the type of work, technical requirement, PMC charges etc., only. _**It is also contended that the payment of advance amount of Rs.97,57,125/- released by the Azhikode Labour Contract Co-operative Society is amounting to 35% of the quoted amount of Rs.2,78,77,500/- is irregular since, as per Government norms G.O.(P) No.67/2021/Fin.,dated 28.4.2021, only 20% of the amount can be sanctioned as advance. Sanctioning 35% of the quoted amount as advance is also irregular**_ . 7. To the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent a detailed affidavit was filed by respondents 7 and 8 as directed by this Court on 05.12.2022 in which it is submitted that the project in question is sponsored by the Government of India and as such the project has to be completed on or before 31.03.2022 but the revised estimate was approved by the competent authority on 09.12.2021. Even prior to the sanctioning of the ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 15** revised estimate the work was already entrusted to the WAPCOS (Water and Power Consultancy Services Ltd., a Central Government accredited agency). As per the then existing rule the contract can be awarded to an accredited agency even without inviting any tenders. WAPCOS could not complete the work because of the various writ petitions filed before this Court in connection with the same. Thereafter the Panchayat entrusted the contract to another accredited agency SILK (Steel Industries Ltd. Kerala). When they also attempted to start the work obstructions were caused at the instance of the petitioners and its associates and accordingly SILK also could not complete the work. Thereafter Ext.R7(b) decision was taken by the Panchayat to invite tenders from accredited agencies of labour contract society. Exts.R7(c) and R7(d) advertisements were made by the Panchayat. Pursuant to Exts.R7(c) and R7(d) three tenders were received. No Government accredited agencies submitted tender. Out of the three tenders the lowest tender was submitted by the 9[th] respondent ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 16** and the Panchayat committee as per Ext.R7(e) decided to accept that tender. While awarding the tender to the 9[th] respondent the respondent Panchayat has considered the accreditation given to the 9[th] respondent by the Co-operative Department as per Ext.R7(f) which mandates that the 9[th] respondent society can take contract works upto rupees six crores. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has also issued eligibility certificate to the 9[th] respondent and classified the same as ‘C’ class. The copy of the eligibility certificate is produced as Ext.R7(g) and that it is only after verifying Exts.R7(f) and R7(g) that the Panchayat committee decided to award the work to the 9[th] respondent. As regard payment of 35% of the tender amount as advance the respondent Panchayat would submit that the entire files were forwarded to the 5[th] respondent and it is the 5[th] respondent who transferred the advance amount to the account of the 9[th] respondent. The 5[th] respondent never objected to the recommendation made by the Panchayat nor limited the amount to 25%. ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 17** 8. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties. 9. Essentially, the complaints raised by the petitioners in this writ petition could be summarized as follows: A project which was sanctioned under the head Sports Infrastructure has now been re-utilised for construction of building for economic upliftment of APL/BPL families, which is against the growth of sports and the same would also result in derailing the existing sports activities in the Panchayat. Petitioners further submit that the project which is now constructed under the guise of a building for upliftment of APL/BPL families is in fact a shopping complex. The 4[th] respondent as per Ext.P3 communication intimated the Secretary of the Panchayat that only after purchasing the land for volleyball ground in completing all formalities for construction of the shopping complex should existing ground be taken over and based on Ext.P3, it is the contention of the petitioners that no steps have been taken by the Panchayat till date ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 18** in this regard. The petitioners based on Ext.P4 photographs produced would submit that this is a photograph uploaded by the Panchayat in its official site and that at the time when Ext.P4 photograph was uploaded, no construction of any sort has commenced and awarding of work has not taken place and therefore submits that the photographs uploaded is that of a totally different building and this is an attempt of the Panchayat to defraud the public. Another grievance of the petitioners is regarding Ext.P5 limited quotation notice and submit that as the amount of total value of the work is 2.80 crores, the Panchayat ought to have called for an Open or E- Tender proceedings. Further complaint raised by the petitioners that the work awarded to the 9[th] respondent is absolutely illegal in as much as Ext.P5 limited quotation notice can be issued only inviting accredited societies and the 9[th] respondent is not an accredited society could not have participated in the tender and the tender ought not have been accepted by the Panchayat. ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 19** The fact that the 9[th] respondent is not an accredited society, who is entitled for participating in the limited quotation issued as per Ext.P5 notice is admitted by the Panchayat in their counter affidavit. It is the further contention of the petitioners that Ext.P9 Government order also makes it clear that a limited quotation could be undertaken only in respect of tenders from accredited agencies. Petitioners have a further case that by Ext.P10 the Assistant Registrar (General), Nedumangad has reported to the Joint Registrar regarding the illegalities that has been noticed in the construction of the building in question by the respondent Panchayat through the 9[th] respondent. Petitioners have a further contention that an advance amount of Rs.97,57,125/-, which is 1/3[rd] amount of the total estimate has already been released to the 9[th] respondent Society and the same has been withdrawn by the 9[th] respondent also. Petitioners would further contend that, in the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent, it **==> picture [429 x 705] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> |||||||||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 20| |is|admitted|that|as|per|Government|norms,| |Ext.R9(g), only 20% of the amount amount could be| |sanctioned as advance and sanctioning of 35% of| |the quoted amount as advance is highly irregular.| |In the counter affidavit of the 5|[th]|respondent, it| |is also admitted that the payment of advance| |amount of Rs.97,57,125/- to the 9|[th]|respondent| |which is almost 35% of the quoted amount is| |irregular,|since|as|per|Government|norms|in| |Ext.R9(g) dated 28.4.2021 only 20% of the amount| |can|be|sanctioned|as|advance|and|therefore,| |sanctioning of 35% quoted amount as advance is| |also irregular. The learned counsel appearing for| |the|9|[th]|respondent|would|contend|that|he|had| |undertaken the work bonafide and that he has| |undertaken major portion of the work and he must| |be allowed to continue with the same, if not, he| |will be put to undue hardship and irreparable| |injury for no fault on his part. He relies on the| |judgment|in|Ramana|Dayaram|Shetty|v.|The| |International|Airport|Authority|of|India|and| |Others (1979 KHC 621)|to contend for the position| **----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 21** that the Apex Court even though in a case found that the tender process was in violation of the Rules and norms, did not interfere with the award of the tender for the reason that there is a delay in approaching the court complaining about the irregularities in the tender process. Petitioners would submit that the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Ramana Dayaram Shetty**_ 's case supra, should be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as there is a delay on the part of the petitioners in submitting complaints within time. A perusal of the pleadings in this case and the arguments advanced by the parties, it is to be noted that the project now tendered is work for the benefit of upliftment of APL/BPL families. Admittedly, the building under construction is a commercial building and to a pointed question put by the court to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat as to how the construction of a shopping complex/commercial building could benefit of the members of the APL/BPL families, a reply was given ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 22** by the learned Standing Counsel that the members of APL/BPL families would be given first preference for allotment of the shop rooms, but no documents has been produced by the respondent Panchayat to substantiate the said contention. As going by the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent it is clear that the tender awarded to the 9[th] respondent is absolutely illegal and against the norms in as much as no limited tenders could be called for from an agency which is not accredited to the Government. It is also not in dispute that advance amount has been given in violation of the relevant Government order in force, i.e., Ext.R9(g) which has not been properly answered by the respondent Panchayat. It is specifically taking note of the said reply given by the 5[th] respondent in the counter affidavit that this Court issued a direction to stop the construction of the work in question which is still in force. In view of the fact that irregularities pointed out by the petitioners were serious in nature which are admitted by the 5[th] ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 23** respondent in the counter affidavit and that the claim made by the 7[th] and 8[th] respondents that the building construction is undertaken for the upliftment of APL/BPL families, this Court is not inclined to non-suit the petitioners on the basis of the judgment in _**Ramana Dayaram Shetty**_ 's case cited supra **.** After hearing both sides, before any further permission is granted to the respondents 7 to 9 to undertake the construction activities of the building in question, I am of the opinion that the matter requires the attention of the Government for which the petitioners have preferred Ext.P11 representation. Therefore, I deem it appropriate that the above writ petition could be disposed of with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to look into the matter and to verify the various illegalities pointed out by the petitioners and to take a decision on Ext.P11. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 2[nd] respondent after affording an opportunity of being heard to respondent Nos.7 to 9. The petitioners as well as ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 24** the said respondents will be free to produce any other additional documents in support of their contentions which shall also be duly adverted to the 2[nd] respondent while a decision is taken on Ext.P11 as directed in this judgment. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the interim order passed by this Court on 5.12.2022 directing to stop the work for construction of the building for commercial upliftment of APL/BPL families will remain in force. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 25** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28051/2022** PETITIONERS EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1||THE TRUE COPY OF THE TABULATED RURBAN| |---|---|---| |||DETAILED WORK LIST-CENTRAL GOVERNMENT| |||FUND, VELLANAD.| |Exhibit P2||THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE MINI STADIUM| |||RENOVATED BY THE PANCHAYAT USING CENTRAL| |||GOVERNMENT FUNDS.| |Exhibit P3||THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER| |||NO.DB2/255/2019/LSGD DATED 4/10/2019| |||SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL| |||SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT TO THE| |||SECRETARY VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT.| |Exhibit P4||THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO AND OTHER| |||DETAILS UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE OF| |||RURBAR MISSION BY VELLANAD PANCHAYAT ON| |||06/10/2020.| |Exhibit P5||THE TRUE COPY OF THE LITER QUOTATION| |||NOTICE NO.A2/201/2022 DATED 25.2.2022| |||ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, VELLANAD GRAMA| |||PANCHAYAT.| |Exhibit P6||THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.2(2) OF| |||THE MEETING OF THE PANCHAYAT ON| |||4/3/2022.| |Exhibit P7||THE TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE| |||NO.A2/1176/2022 DATED 5/3/2022 ISSUED BY| |||THE SECRETARY, VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT| |||TO THE PRESIDENT OF AZHIKODE LABOUR| |||CONTRACT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY.| |Exhibit P8||THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)| |||NO.77/2019/FIN DATED 4/7/2019 ISSUED BY| |||THE FINANCE (INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC| |||WORKS-B) DEPARTMENT.| |Exhibit P8|A|THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)| |||NO.92/2022/FIN DATED 22.8.2022.| |Exhibit P9||THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)| ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 26** NO.7/2022/FIN DATED 17/1/2022 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE (INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC WORKS-B) DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.N.D.D.466728/22 DATED 7.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), NEDUMANGAD. Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.8.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 5TH STATE LEVEL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE MEETING (SLEC) HELD ON 19-12-2021. Exhibit R8(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DETAILED REVISED WORK LIST PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE SLEC MEETING. Exhibit R8(c) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE STADIUM. Exhibit R8(d) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE STADIUM. Exhibit R8(e) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FOUNDATION STONE LAID AT THE STADIUM. Exhibit R8(f) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ASSET REGISTER OF VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. Exhibit R8(q) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VOLLEYBALL STADIUM CONSTRUCTED BY THE PANCHAYAT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R8(h) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FOUNDATION STONE OF THE VOLLEYBALL STADIUM. Exhibit R8(I) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHUTTLE BADMINTON COURT. |**W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 27**|**W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 27**| |---|---| |Exhibit R8(j)|TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COMPOUND WALL AND| ||THE FRONT VIEW OF THE SHUTTLE BADMINTON| ||COURT.| |Exhibit R8(K)|TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE| ||HOISTING OF THE FLAG IN THE CONSTRUCTION| ||SITE.| |Exhibit R8(l)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2022| ||IN WP(C) NO.14937/2022.| |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit P12|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||3.9.2022 ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT, 2005| ||BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,| ||VELLANAND VILLAGE.| |Exhibit P13|THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PLAYGROUND PRIOR| ||TO THE DIGGING USING JCBS IS PUBLISHED| ||IN LEADING NEWSPAPER.| |Exhibit P14|THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE| ||OF VOLLEYBALL GROUND TILL THE ABRUPT ACT| ||OF STARTING DIGGING AND DESTROYING THE| ||STADIUM.| |Exhibit P15|THE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING| ||THE FUNCTION IN THE STADIUM.| |Exhibit P16|THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE| ||DESTRUCTION DONE BY THE RESPONDENT 7 AND| ||8 TO THE STADIUM.| |Exhibit P17|THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.| ||104/2022/FIN.DATED 2.9.2022.| |Exhibit P18|THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P).| ||NO.524/15/FIN.DATED 17.11.2015.| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R9(e)|True copy of the Order dated 29-4-2022| ||in WP(C) No. 14937 of 2022 on the files| ||of this honourable Court| |Exhibit R9(a)|True copy of the agreement dated 7-3-| ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 28** ||2022 executed between the 9th Respondent| |---|---| ||and the 7th respondent| |Exhibit R9(b)|True copy of the letter No. A2/1176/17| ||dated 8-3-2021 issued by the 7th| ||respondent| |Exhibit R9(c)|True copy of the letter dated 22-4-2022| ||submitted by the 9th Respondent before| ||the 7th respondent| |Exhibit R(d)|True copy of the complaint dated 27-4-| ||2022 submitted by the 9th Respondent to| ||the Police| |Exhibit R9(f)|Photograph showing the present stage of| ||construction| |Exhibit R9(g)|True copy of the G.O. (P) No.| ||67/2021/Fin. Dated 28-4-2021 issued by| ||the 2nd respondent| |Exhibit R7(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.| ||(P) NO. 7/2022/FIN. DATED 17.01.2022.| |Exhibit R7(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE| ||VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE AT| ||ITS MEETING HELD ON 21.02.2022.| |Exhibit R7(C)|TRUE COPY OF THE LIMITED QUOTATION| ||NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT| ||DATED 25.02.2022.| |Exhibit R7(D)|TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT MADE BY| ||THE PANCHAYAT IN KERALA KOUMUDI DAILY| ||DATED 26.02.2022.| |Exhibit R7(E)|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE VELLANAD| ||GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD| ||ON 4.3.2022.| |Exhibit R7(F)|TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.| ||(RT) NO. 318/2021/COOP. DATED 24.05.2021| ||ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE| ||DEPARTMENT.| |Exhibit R7(G)|TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE| ## **W.P.(C).No.28051 of 2022 29** ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED 26.08.2021.