Shery.P.A. v. Union of India & Others

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 32126 OF 2022 ## PETITIONER: SHERY.P.A., AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL WAHAB V.A. RESIDING AT SREYAS, PAMBINEZHATH, EDAVANAKKAD POST, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM – 682 502. BY ADVS.BALU TOM M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) BONNY BENNY GOVIND G. NAIR BEJOY JOSEPH P.J. ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, NEW DELHI – 110 003. - 2 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP. BY IT'S REGIONAL OFFICER, AMBALY ARCADE, SNNRA-9, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024. - 3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NHAI, PIU KOCHI, VII/511 B, NEYTHELI, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM – 682030. - 4 SHRI. VISHNU PRADEEP, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 73/2146 A2, PACHALAM ROB, PACHALAM PO, ERNAKULAM – 682012. 5 SHRI. N.J. ASHWIN, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HAVING ADDRESS CHAMBER NO. 324, KHCAA CHAMBER COMPLEX, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM - 682018. BY ADVS.MANU S., DSG OF INDIA SMT.KRISHNA T C SRI.P.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 2 :: ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 13[th] day of April, 2023 ## S.MANIKUMAR, C.J. Instant Public Interest Litigation, is filed by a lawyer practicing before various courts in Paravur and Ernakulam. Petitioner claims that she was a member of her local Panchayat, Edavanakkad, for the 12[th] Ward (village ward), for the years 2000-2005 and again from 2016-2020. The challenge involved in this writ petition is with respect to the engagement of the counsel for conduct of litigation wherein both Union of India and National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) are parties. ## 2. Reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as under: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the original of Ext.P6 order. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2[nd] respondent to issue orders directing that the lawyers empanelled by way of Ext.P2 should represent cases on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to issue appropriate orders directing that cases in which both the Union of India and the 2[nd] respondent NHAI are parties, the Union of India should be represented by empanelled counsels on such behalf, and the 2[nd] respondent be represented by WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 3 :: empanelled counsels of the 2[nd] respondent separately. iv) issue a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction causing removal of the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents as counsels engaged by the 2[nd] respondent in cases where the Union of India and the 2[nd] respondents are parties, finding that the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents are ineligible for the said post.” 3. Mr. Govind G Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the cases involving NHAI and the Union of India as parties are of high public interest. Throughout Kerala, National Highways is being widened and large scale acquisition, construction and associated works are being carried out by the second respondent – National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). At the same time, there are large number of cases pending before Courts concerning National Highways in the State. These matters relate to acquisition, alignment of the highways, applicability of Fair Compensation Act, 2013, etc. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, high level of competence and experience is required for the conduct of such cases, which have high financial implications for the State. It is stated in the writ petition that in the year 2017, the second respondent – National WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 4 :: Highways Authority of India (NHAI), vide Exhibit-P1 dated 5.9.2017 called for an Expression Of Interest (EOI) for empanelment of Law Firms/Advocates before various courts in the State. The mandatory eligibility criterion for empanelment was that the said law firms/advocates should possess a minimum experience of 10 years in Arbitrations/ Court Cases of PSUs/Government Departments on contractual disputes, service matters and environmental litigation. Thereafter, three law firms and three lawyers were recommended to be empanelled in this regard for the State of Kerala vide Exhibit-P2, after detailed verification and evaluation. 5. Later, vide Exhibit-P4 dated 9[th] December 2021, the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs of the 1[st] respondent – Union of India has issued a letter to all the Secretaries to Government of India advising that all the Ministries/ Departments issue instructions that the cases wherein Union of India is also a party along with an autonomous body, the same should be defended on behalf of both, the autonomous body as well as Union of India by separate panel counsel engaged in this regard. WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 5 :: 6. However, by Exhibit-P6 communication dated 01.09.2022, the Regional Officer of the 2[nd] respondent stated that the Counsels engaged by the Department of Legal Affairs of the first respondent shall defend cases in which both Union of India and NHAI are parties. 7. Being aggrieved by Exhibit-P6, petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to quash the original of the said communication and to direct the 2[nd] respondent to issue orders directing that the lawyers empanelled by way of Exhibit-P2 should represent cases on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the empanelled counsel of individual autonomous bodies are required to be engaged to defend cases in which such body is a party. It is submitted that there is a large public interest with respect to the cases filed in which NHAI and the Government are parties. The apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Mr. Vishnu Pradeep and Mr. N. J. Ashwin, (respondents 4 and 5) engaged to conduct cases, as per Exhibit-P6, do not meet the essential eligibility criteria necessary for conducting WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 6 :: cases on behalf of the second respondent/National Highways Authority of India. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for a direction causing removal of the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents as counsel engaged by the 2[nd] respondent in cases where the Union of India and the 2[nd] respondents are parties, finding that respondents 4 and 5 are ineligible for the said post. 9. According to the petitioner, cases in which both the Union of India and 2[nd] respondent – NHAI are parties, Union of India should be represented by empanelled counsel on such behalf, and the 2[nd] respondent be represented by empanelled counsel of the NHAI separately. 10. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in State of Punjab and others v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and others [ 2016 KHC 6248] , wherein the court considered the issue that whether appointment of law officers by the State Governments can be questioned or the process by which such appointments are made, can be assailed on the ground that the same are arbitrary, hence, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, relevant portion of which reads as under: WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 7 :: “31. While dealing with the nature of the legal profession, this Court observed that legal profession was essentially a service-oriented profession and that the relationship between the lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence. As a responsible officer of the court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice, the lawyer also owes a duty to the court as well as to the opposite side. He has to be fair to ensure that justice is done. He demeans himself if he acts merely as a mouthpiece of his client. Having said that, this Court noted the changed profile of the legal profession because of the expansion of public sector activities necessitating maintenance of a common panel of lawyers, some of whom are in fulltime employment of the government or public institutions as their law officers. 32. On the question of public interest involved in the appointment of lawyers, this Court unequivocally declared that the government or the public body represents public interest and whoever is in charge of running their affairs is no more than a trustee or a custodian of public interest. Protection of public interests in the best possible manner is their primary duty. It follows that public bodies are under an obligation to the society to take the best possible steps to safeguard such interests. That obligation in turn casts on them the duty to engage the most competent servants, agents, advisers etc. Even in the matter of selection of lawyers, those who are running the government or the public bodies are under an obligation to make earnest efforts to select the best from the available lot. This is more so because the claims made by and/or against the public bodies are monetarily substantial and socially crucial with farreaching consequences. 33. This Court while dealing with the third dimension touching the mode of appointment of lawyers declared that in conformity with the obligation cast upon them those handling the affairs of the State are duty bound to select the most meritorious, whatever the method adopted for such selection and appointment may be. It must be shown that a search for the meritorious was undertaken and that appointments were made only on the basis of the merit WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 8 :: and not for any other consideration. The following passage is in this regard apposite.” 11. Refuting the contentions raised in the writ petition, Mr.S.Manu, the learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that there is no public interest in this writ petition. 12. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, wherein it is stated that the writ petitioner did not specifically highlight any public grievance warranting interference of this Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the power to engage a counsel to represent the 1[st] respondent and its functionaries is available to the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner does not have a case that the 2[nd] respondent has an independent existence. On the contrary, the 2[nd] respondent is an agency implementing the policy and plans of the 1[st] respondent out of the funds provided by the 1[st] respondent. The writ petitioner must plead and prove the case in a writ petition. The petitioner through her averments raise wild allegations, presumes many things but does not substantiate the same with specific pleadings and documentary evidences. WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 9 :: ## 13. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed on ## behalf of the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents reads as under: “3. The petitioner has not stated in the writ petition anything about the public interest involved in the present writ petition on account of the decisions taken by the central government in engaging the lawyers of their choice before the various courts and authorities. The averments made are vague and are nothing but the invention of the petitioner to file the writ petition. The petitioner did not specifically highlight any public grievance warranting the interference of this Hon'ble Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court on a misconception of the relevant orders issued by the 1[st] respondent as well as the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner cannot rely on Exhibits P1 to P3 after the issuance of Exhibit P4 by the 1[st] respondent. In terms of Government of India [Allocation of Business] Rules, 1961, the Ministry of Law and Justice is competent to engage counsels for representing the Government before various authorities. It is not in dispute that the 2[nd] respondent is an agency fully funded by the 1[st] respondent and under the administrative control of the concerned ministry of the 1[st] respondent. The works carried out by the 2[nd] respondent are in terms of the decisions taken by the 1[st] respondent and utilising the funds allocated for the same by the 1[st] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent has only the status of an implementing agency with the limited freedom to decide on technicalities. The petitioner does not have a case contrary to what is stated above. 5. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner did not mention the fact that the directions to various ministries under the 1[st] respondent, to engage the lawyers empanelled by the 1[st] respondent in matters where the 1[st ] respondent and other bodies under the 1[st] respondent are parities dates back to 2017. The decision to engage the lawyers chosen by the 1[st] respondent was taken, when it was noticed that in WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 10 :: some cases, there was lack of coordination among the lawyers representing the 1[st] respondent and bodies under the 1[st ] respondent. In such cases, the disputes are likely to be lost and the 1[st] respondent had to suffer the losses. Exhibit R4A was followed by several communications reiterating the implementation of the directions contained therein in letter and spirit. 6. The petitioner did not espouse any grievance in the writ petition which warrants the interference of this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner also lacks the locus standi to seek the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are not liable to be granted. No infirmity has been pointed out in the writ petition, to challenge Exhibit P6 order which is nothing but a reminder sent for implementing the decision taken through Exhibit R4A. No direction could also be issued to the 2[nd] respondent to act contrary to Exhibit R4A office memorandum. Above all, the petitioner could not be seen as aggrieved on account of Exhibit R4A. Even the 2[nd] respondent can have grievance against Exhibit R4A as the same was issued by a competent authority. The writ of quo warranto as sought for by the petitioner is also not liable to be granted as the necessary ingredients warranting the issuance of such a writ is not made out in the writ petition. 7. It is respectfully submitted that so far as these respondents are concerned they are appointed as Central Government Standing Counsels, to handle cases entrusted to them by the Deputy Solicitor General of India who is in charge of litigations on behalf of the 1[st] respondent in this Court. We are expected to handle the cases entrusted to us and we are performing our duties with utmost care and dedication. It is true that when it was noticed that the 2[nd] respondent used to engage the lawyers empanelled by them to handle cases in which the 1[st] respondent is also a party, as dutiful counsels, we intimated the facts to the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent took notice of the same and initiated immediate actions to implement the directions contained in Exhibit R4A. Such an action was highly necessary in the given circumstances. But the WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 11 :: petitioner through her averments attempts to find fault with our actions. 8. It is further submitted that through the writ petition the petitioner is making an attempt to interfere with the right of the litigant to choose a counsel of his choice. The petitioner cannot seek a direction from this Hon'ble Court to compel the 1[st] respondent to engage a counsel contrary to the interest of the 1[st] respondent and this Hon'ble Court cannot also issue a direction to the 1[st ] respondent to engage a counsel of petitioner's choice to handle the cases before this Court. The petitioner is misinterpreting Exhibit P4 document to suggest that the same supports her case. 9. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that we do not meet the essential eligibility criteria necessary for conducting cases on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent. The said averment cannot survive the scrutiny of law as we are entitled to represent the client in terms of the provisions contained in the Advocates Act. The eligibility criteria fixed by the 2[nd] respondent cannot be insisted for the empanelment of the counsels for representing the 1[st] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent is under the administrative control of the 1[st] respondent and the 1[st] respondent funds the activities of the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd ] respondent cannot have any policy or plan independent of the interests of the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent found it necessary to have a single counsel, who is appointed by the 1[st] respondent to handle the cases in which the 1[st ] and 2[nd ] respondents are parties. The said decision is not open to judicial scrutiny as the same is one relating to the right of a litigant to choose a counsel of his choice. 10. It is also submitted that these respondents are appointed by the 1[st] respondent to handle the cases wherein the 1[st] respondent is a party. The Deputy Solicitor General is in charge of the litigations in the High Court and as Central Government Standing Counsel, we assist him in handling the cases wherein the 1[st ] respondent is a party. It is also to be noted that apart from us many central government standing counsels appear and plead on behalf of the WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 12 :: 2[nd ] respondent. In this context it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has made the wild allegation about our ineligibility, did not specifically plead on our ineligibility to hold the brief for the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. Wild, ambiguous and non specific averments shall not be a ground to seek a writ of certiorari against any person. The Deputy Solicitor General of India is appointed by the Ministry of Law and Justice and he is competent to allot files to the central government standing counsels who are also appointed by the same ministry. 11. None of the grounds raised in the writ petition also justify the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Though the petitioner pleads that she is a public spirited person and a vocal activist for lawyers rights, it is surprising to see that she had ventured to challenge the right of a lawyer to handle the cases of his client in this Court. The prayers sought for in the writ petition primarily deprives lawyers like us of our right to practice. No person who is concerned about the rights of lawyers would have made averments, which casts aspersions on lawyers that too without any basis at all. The petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and the attempts made by her is not protect any public interest. 12. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner does not plead any ground or point out any instance, wherein the interest of the 1[st] or 2[nd] respondents were compromised by the act of any lawyer, especially by us, empanelled by the 1[st] respondent. Without the backing of relevant data the petitioner ought not to have made averments casting doubts on our capability as lawyers. On the contrary the intention of the 1[st ] respondent in deciding to have a common counsel to represent the cases of the 1[st,] 2[nd] respondents is fully justified. The 1[st] respondent identified the need for co-ordination among the authorities in effectively defending the cases and issued Exhibit R4A. The 2[nd ] respondent is bound by the same and consequential orders were issued. 13. The petitioner's contention that the public are in the dark regarding the litigations and they are in a disadvantageous position are not nothing but WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 13 :: figment of the petitioner's imagination. A writ petition shall not be the outcome of presumptions and surmises. The writ petitioner must plead and prove the case in a writ petition. The petitioner through her averments raise wild allegations, presumes many things but does not substantiate the same with specific pleadings and documentary evidences. 14. It is interesting to note that the petitioner, who laments about the expenditure of public money failed to note that engaging two counsels to represent the same interests is nothing but wastage of public money. Even according to the petitioner about 1000 cases are presently pending before this Hon'ble Court in which the 1[st] and 2[nd ] respondents are parties. The legal expenses could be substantially saved, if a single counsel represent both the parties as they represent the same cause. Further, the expenditure on account of engaging a counsel by the 2[nd ] respondent, is also to be met by the 1[st] respondent. On this count also the petitioner's arguments are to be rejected and the real intention behind the filing of the present writ petition is to be doubted. The petitioner has produced some documents which are personal in nature and she did not reveal the source of the said documents. All these aspects are reasons to doubt the bonafides behind the writ petition. 15. The 1[st] respondent funds the various projects carried out by the 2[nd ] respondent and every project carried out by the 2[nd ] respondent has the approval of the 1[st] respondent. In such a scenario there is no possibility of having any conflict of interest between the 1[st ] and 2[nd ] respondents. So the apprehension raised by the petitioner in this regard is also baseless. The comparison drawn by the petitioner in her averments in the writ petition are unwarranted. As rightly stated by the petitioner engaging a lawyer of client's choice is not like an appointment in a service. The choice is that of the client and it is not bordered by the rules and regulations as in the case of an appointment in a service. 16. The different judgment cited by the petitioner has little relevance in the present context. No authority has shown any laxity in performing the WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 14 :: duties cast upon them. Every care is being taken to protect the interest of the public and that of the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondent. Strict control is implemented in the matter of spending public money. All these are done through Exhibit R4A, which is not under challenge in the writ petition. It is to be borne in mind that even as a lawyer, the petitioner does not have a right to claim an engagement on behalf of the 1[st ] or 2[nd] respondent. Considering this, the petitioner does not espouse any public interest in the present writ petition. 17. The concept of arbitrariness is well defined and the petitioner cannot impute arbitrariness in a decision taken by the 1[st] respondent through Exhibit R4A. The power to engage a counsel to represent the 1[st ] respondent and its functionaries is available to the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner does not have a case that the 2[nd ] respondent has an independent existence. On the contrary the 2[nd] respondent is an agency implementing the policy and plans of the 1[st] respondent out of the funds provided by the 1[st] respondent. Without specific pleadings the petitioner has ventured to go on an experimental litigation and in this process the petitioner even made averments, disputing the credibility and ability of these respondents. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner should be directed to remove such comments and to tender an unconditional apology to these respondents.” 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 15. In support of the contentions raised in the writ petition, petitioner has produced various documents. Exhibit-P4 letter issued by the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs of the 1[st] respondent – Union of India to all the WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 15 :: ## Secretaries to Government of India on 9[th] December 2021 is ## reproduced below: **==> picture [369 x 465] intentionally omitted <==** 16. Exhibit-P5 office memorandum issued by the Assistant Legal Adviser (Judicial) of the 1[st] respondent on 26.7.2022 is reproduced hereunder: WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 16 :: **==> picture [392 x 455] intentionally omitted <==** 17. Exhibit-P6 letter issued by the Regional Officer of the 2[nd] respondent – NHAI to the Assistant Solicitor General of India on 01.09.2022 is reproduced hereunder: WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 17 :: **==> picture [411 x 398] intentionally omitted <==** 18. A memo dated 22.10.2022 has been filed on behalf of the respondents along with certain documents, which are annexed as Annexure A to Annexure F documents. Annexure A is the Office Memorandum dated 30.6.2017 issued by Judicial Section, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, which reads as under: WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 18 :: **==> picture [423 x 488] intentionally omitted <==** ## 19. Annexure B is the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2019 issued by Judicial Section, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, which reads as under: WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 19 :: **==> picture [399 x 298] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [399 x 325] intentionally omitted <==** WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 20 :: **==> picture [407 x 626] intentionally omitted <==** WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 21 :: **==> picture [395 x 601] intentionally omitted <==** WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 22 :: **==> picture [398 x 163] intentionally omitted <==** ## 20. Annexure C is the communication dated 9.12.2021, ## which reads as under: **==> picture [391 x 350] intentionally omitted <==** ## 21. Annexure D is the office memorandum dated ## 26.07.2022, which reads as under: WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 23 :: **==> picture [417 x 438] intentionally omitted <==** ## 22. Annexure E is the office memorandum dated 16.03.2020, which reads as under: WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 24 :: **==> picture [423 x 520] intentionally omitted <==** 23. Annexure F is the communication dated 1.09.2022, which is reproduced hereunder: WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 25 :: **==> picture [414 x 449] intentionally omitted <==** 24. Perusal of the documents makes it clear that Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, has issued instructions to the effect that most of the autonomous bodies are not only funded by Government of India, but also governed by various rules and regulations of Government of India. WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 26 :: 25. Those autonomous bodies implement the policy decisions of the Government of India. 26. Material on record makes it further clear that it is the decision of the Ministry of Law and Justice that wherever Union of India is a party, along with the autonomous body, both should be defended by the panel Counsel engaged by the Government of India alone. Annexure-E Office Memorandum dated 16.03.2020 also sets out the reasons as to why a Central Government Counsel is required to be engaged. 27. Respondents 4 and 5 are fully qualified to be engaged by the Government of India. They have their role while defending the Central Government and NHAI. Contentions to the contra made by the writ petitioner are wholly untenable. 28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the power to engage a counsel to represent the 1[st] respondent/Union of India and its functionaries is available to the 1[st ] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent/NHAI is an agency implementing the policy and plans of the 1[st] respondent – Union of India, out of the funds WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 27 :: provided by the 1[st] respondent. 29. Giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances and the material on record, particularly keeping in mind the averments made on behalf of the respondents in the counter affidavit dated 29[th] November 2022, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for granting any reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE jesxxxxxxxxxx WP(C)NO.32126 OF 2022 :: 28 :: ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXPRESSION OF INTEREST BEARING NUMBER NHAI/11401/L&A DIV/EOI/2017 DATED 05.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GENERAL MANAGER (T), RO KERALA OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NUMBER NHAI/ROKERALA/ EADV/15017/2018-1076 DATED 11.09.2018. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICER, RO-KERALA OF THE 2ND 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NUMBER NHAI/RO-KERALA/EADV/15017/2018-0249 DATED 25.02.2019. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NUMBERED D.O. NO. J-18/50/2021-JUDICIAL DATED 09.12.2021. EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LEGAL ADVISER (JUDICIAL) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NUMBERED F. NO. J-18/37/2022-JUDICIAL DATED 26.07.2022. EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NUMBERED 11115/ROKERALA/COURT MATTER/1390 DATED 01.09.2022. ## RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.J- 12012/2/2017JUDICIAL DATED 30.06.2017 ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.J-12017/1/2019JUDICIAL DATED 21.10.2019 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE D.O NO.J-18/50/2021-JUDICIAL DATED 9.12.2021 ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.J-18/37/2022JUDUCIAL DATED 26.07.2022 ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 11115/RO-KERALA/COURT MATTER/1390 DATED 01.09.2022 ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF OM DATED 16.03.2020 EXHIBIT R6 A A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 29.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE