High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-11-19Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside...

Sree Kochu Malayalapuzha Devi Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, District Police Chief (Thiruvananthapuram Rural) and The President, Azhankal Action Council

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.16134 of 2019 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date: 2019-11-19
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed; the impugned Ext.P20 order is set aside; the first respondent is directed to extend permission to the Sree Kochu Malayalapuzha Devi Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi to operate the temple, subject to applicable law and order considerations.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; district authorities directed to grant permission to samithi

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sree Kochu Malayalapuzha Devi Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi (Reg. No. T-2838/2007)
Sree Kochu Malayalapuzha Devi Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi, represented by its Secretary

Respondents

District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation
District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural
The President, Azhankal Action Council

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Sudheesh Kumar
• Sri K.B. Dayal

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Reshmi K.M. (Government Pleader) for District Collector/ District Police Chief
• Sri N. Nandakumara Menon (Sr.) and Sri P.K. Manojkumar for Thiruvananthapuram Corporation
• Sri Nemom Chandrababu for The President, Azhankal Action Council

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns a temple project at Karamana, established in 2007 in a temporary structure, where the petitioners (Sree Kochu Malayalapuzha Devi Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi) sought permission to regularize and expand the temple complex and to permit public worship. The District Collector rejected the request in Ext.P20, citing potential law and order issues based on three reports (Ext.P21(a)-(c)). Earlier, Ext.P15 was set aside in W.P.(C) No.37778/2017 for non-compliance with natural justice; Ext.P17 later modified to permit lighting a lamp during pendency. The core issue is whether the first respondent’s denial of permission, grounded in communal violence risk under the Government Order GO (P).No. 217 of 2005, is legally sustainable. The court reiterated that the right to worship is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution subject to public order, morality and health, and to other provisions of Part III. It emphasized that the Government Order’s objective is to prevent communal violence and promote harmony, not to curtail religious practices absent public-order violations. It distinguished law and order from communal harmony, noting the State’s duty to protect religious worship that does not contravene constitutional rights. The impugned order was found unsustainable, and the petition was allowed, with a direction to grant permission to the samithi, while keeping in mind ongoing law-and-order considerations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Part III of the ConstitutionArticle 25 of the ConstitutionG.O.(P).No. 217 of 2005 dated 25.07.2005

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Right to freedom of religion under Article 25 subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
Guidelines to promote communal harmony and prevent communal violence.
Law and order is distinct from communal harmony; the State cannot deny permission solely on local objections when religious practices do not violate constitutional rights.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners seek permission to operate the temple as a place of public worship. Relying on Article 25 and the GO 217/2005 guidelines aimed at communal harmony, they contend that denial based on non-fulfillment of local preferences infringes constitutional rights, especially on private land where the temple stands. The court had previously remanded Ext.P15 for natural justice and allowed lighted lamp during pendency (Ext.P17). They argue that the objective of the guidelines is stabilizing communal relations, not suppressing religious practice absent a threat to public order, morality, or health. The petition asserts that the reports relied upon do not prove an imminent risk of violence that would legally justify denying worship.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that permission was declined in Ext.P20 to avert possible law-and-order disturbances; Ext.P21(a)-(c) comprise reports by Sub Collector, District Police Chief, and District Special Branch indicating potential clashes if worship resumes. They contend that GO 217/2005 and the public-order concerns require cautious action to safeguard the community and harmonious relations, and that the state cannot ignore the risk when there is credible evidence of disorder. They emphasize that public order and communal harmony may sometimes necessitate restricting religious activities to protect broader public interests.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Fr. Geevarghese v. District Collector	2014 (4) KLT 553	Mentioned Only	Cited to support the principle that religious practices cannot be denied merely because some locals object, unless public order, morality or health is affected.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sree Kochu Malayalapuzha Devi Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, District Police Chief (Thiruvananthapuram Rural) and The President, Azhankal Action Council and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.16134 OF 2019(N)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 SREE KOCHU MALAYALAPUZHA DEVI KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHNA SAMITHY REG.NO.T-2838/2007, BUND ROAD, ANANDAMOOLA, AZHAANKAAL, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT M.REJIKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MAHESAN.** - **2 SREE KOCHU MALAYALAPUZHA DEVI KSHETHRAMSAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI,REG.NO.T-2838/2007, BUND ROAD, ANANDAMOOLA, AZHAANKAAL, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAJESH B., AGED 36, S/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, KALLAMPILLY, VINAYAKA NAGAR, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR SRI.K.B.DAYAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KODAPPANAKUNNU P.O., PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 005.** - **2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 005.** - **3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033.** - **4 THE PRESIDENT, AZHANKAL ACTION COUNCIL, NEERAMANKARA, KAIMANAM, AZHANKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 002. R1, R3 BY SMT.RESHMI K.M.,GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) & SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION R4 BY ADV. SRI.NEMOM CHANDRABABU** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** A body named Sree Kochu Malayalapuzha Devi Kshekthra Samrakshana Samithi managing the affairs of a temple has come up in this writ petition challenging Ext.P20 order of the first respondent, the District Collector. 2. The relevant facts are the following: The temple is one established in the year 2007 in a temporary structure. The petitioners have constructed a few additional structures in the place of the original temporary structure without obtaining permission from the local authority, for the proper upkeep and maintenance of the temple. Though the additional structures constructed by the the petitioners conform to the applicable building rules, the local authority has not regularized the structures as the structures were constructed without the permission of the District Collector in terms of the guidelines issued by the Government as per G.O.(P).No. 217 of 2005 dated 25.7.2005 to prevent and control communal disturbances and promote communal harmony. Due to the aforesaid reason, and on the ground that the people in the locality have objections against the religious practices followed in the temple, the police have also not permitted the worshipers to offer worship in the temple. The petitioners, therefore, preferred an application to the first respondent for the approval of the District Authorities for the temple. The request made by the petitioner in this connection was turned down by the first WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 3 respondent in terms of Ext.P15 order. Ext.P15 order has been set aside by this court in W.P.(C) No.37778 of 2017 and the matter was directed to be considered afresh on the ground that the same was vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Ext.P17 is the judgment in the said case. Ext.P17 was, later, reviewed and modified to the extent permitting the petitioner to light a lamp in the temple during the pendency of the application. The application of the petitioner was turned down again by the first respondent in terms of Ext.P20 order. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent supporting Ext.P20 order. Though the body of the people in the locality who are stated to be raising objections against the religious practices followed in the temple has been arrayed as the fourth respondent in the writ petition, no counter affidavit is filed by them in the matter. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 5. Ext.P20 order indicates that the permission sought by the petitioners was declined on the ground that there will be law and order issues in the area, if the permission sought by the petitioners is granted. In order to come to the said conclusion, the first respondent has relied upon three reports which are referred to in the order as WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 4 items 21, 22 and 23, of which item No.21 is the report of the Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram dated 10.12.2018, item No.22 is the report of the District Police Chief dated 05.01.2019 and item No.23 is the report of the Assistant Police Commissioner of the District Special Branch dated 01.03.2019. Exts.P21(a) is the report of the Assistant Police Commissioner of the District Special Branch, Ext.P21(b) is the report of the District ub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Ext.P21(c) is the report of the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram city. 6. The relevant portion of Ext.P21(a) report reads thus: “2016, 2017, 2018 ക�ലയളവ�ൽ ട�. ക�തത�ന� പവർതന� സ�ബന�ക�� നടത�പ� സ�ബന�ക�� മറ കമ സമ�ധ�ന പശങൾ ഒന� . തന% റ�കപ�ർട� ന(യ�ട�ല�തത�കന ന�ലവ�ൽ ഈ ക�തത�ന� പവർതനവമ�യ� ബനനപട� പക.ശത കമസമ�ധ�ന പശങൾ ന�ലവ�ൽ . ഇല�തത�ണ� എ%�ൽ ക�തത�ന മഴവൻ സമയ പവർതന�നമത� നൽക% പ�� ആ�ൻ ക:ൺസ�ൽ അ�ഗങള� ക�ത ഭ�രവ�ഹ�കള� തമ�ൽ സങർഷ� ഉണ�വ�ൻ സ�ധGത ഉനണന കരമന കപ�ലHസ� കIഷൻ S.H.O റ�കപ�ർട� ന(യ�ടളത�ണ� . എ%�ൽ എകപ�ൾ ക�ത� തറന പവർത�പ�ക�ൻ തടങ�യത� മതൽ പറ� . ന�ടകള�ൽ ന�ന� മറ� ധ�ര�ള� ആൾക�ർ ട� സലത എത%ത�യ� ന�ടക�ർ . പര�ത�നപടനണ� ക�ത നടത�പ�ന� ന�യമ പക�രമള അനമത� ലഭGമ�ക�നത ട�യ�ൻ ട� ക�തത�ൽ നടത� വര% പജകൾ ന�ടക�രനട ഇടയ�ൽ ക�� ര�ഷHയകഭ.നമകനG അമർഷവ� വ�ക.Uഷവ� വളർതവ�നള സ�ധGത ഉണ�. ആയത കടതൽ കമസമ�ധ�ന പശങള�കലക� സങർഷത�കലക� നയ�കവ�നള സ�ഹ(രG� സഷ�ക�. ആയത�ന�ൽ ഈ WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 5 ക�തത�ന� പവർതന� തടര%ത� അഭ�ക�മGമല എനള വ�വര� അങയനട അറ�വ�ന� അനനര നടപട�കൾകമ�യ� റ�കപ�ർട� ന(യ നക�ളന.” The relevant portion of Ext.P21(b) reads thus: "നക�ചമലയ�ലപഴ ക.വ� ക�ത� എ% കപര�ലള ആര�ധന�ലയ� സ�ത� ന(യ% ത�രവനതപര� ജ�ലയ�ൽ ത�രവനതപര� ത�ലക�ൽ കനമ� - വ�കലജ�ൽ റH സർകd 96/2-3-1 ഇൽ നപട 03.24 ആർ വസ ശH. നറജ�കമ�ർ കപര�ൽ കര� തHരവയ�ല� കകവശത�ലമ�ണ�. ട�. ആര�ധന�ലയ� പ�പൻകക�ട� ആഴ�ങൽ എ% സലത ഏത�ണ� 80 വർഷമ�യ� പവർത�കന. ര�വ�നല 7.30 മണ� മതൽ 12.30 വനരയ� കവക�ട� 5.30 മതൽ 8.30 മണ� വനരയമ�ണ� ക�ത� പവർത�ക%ത�. ട�. സലനത അയൽ ത�മസക�നരയ� പര�സരവ�സ�കനളയ� കനര�ൽ കകൾകകയണ�യ�. ശH. ര�കജഷ� , ശH. കഗ�പകമ�ർ, ശH. പ.Hപ� , ശH. ബ�ബ , ശH. കസതകമ�ഹനൻ , ശH. സ�. നടര�ജൻ എ%�വനര കനര�ൽ കകടത�ൽ ട�യ�ളകൾക ക�തത�ന� പവർതന� മല� ബദ�മടണ�ക%ത�യ� ക�തത�ന� അനമത� നൽകരനതന� . ട�. ആവശGനപട�ര�കന ക�തത�ന� പവർതനനത സ�ബന�� ന�ടക�ര�യ ശHമത� സത�ലക�, ശHമത� ശ�ന, ശHമത� ന(ലമ , ശHമത� ജ�നക�, ശH. ജയകമ�ർ എ%�വരനട നമ�ഴ� കരഖനപടതകയ� ട�യ�ളകൾക ക�ത� പവർതന� സ�ബന�� പര�ത�കൾ ഒന� തന% ഇല�നയന� അഭ�പ�യനപട�ര�കന. സലപര�കശ�ധനയനടയ� നമ�ഴ�കളനടയ� അട�സ�നത�ൽ സമയകമ� പ�ല�ച നക�ണ� പര�സരവ�സ�കൾക� ബദ�മട� കമസമ�ധ�ന പശങൾ ഉണ�ക%�ല�നയന കപ�ലHസ� റ�കപ�ർട� ന(യ% പ�� ആര�ധന�ലയ� പവർത�കനന�ന� അനമത� നൽക%ത�ൽ അപ�കത ഇനല% വ�വര� ഒറ�ജ�നൽ നമ�ഴ� പകർപ� സഹ�ത� റ�കപ�ർട� ന(യ നക�ളന.” WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 6 The relevant portion of Ext.P21(c) reads thus: "അകനUഷണത�ൽ ട�. ക�തത�ന� മഴവൻ സമയ പവർതന�നമത� നൽക% പ�� ആ�ൻ ക:ൺസ�ൽ അ�ഗങള� ക�ത ഭ�രവ�ഹ�കള� തമ�ൽ S.H.O. സങർഷ� ഉണ�ക�ൻ സ�ധGത ഉനണ%� കരമന കപ�ലHസ� കIഷൻ റ�കപ�ർട� ന(യ�ടളത�ണ�. ആയത�ന�ൽ ഈ ക�തത�നല പവർതന� തടര%ത� അഭ�ക�മGമല എനള വ�വര� അങയനട അറ�വ�ന� അനനര നടപട�കൾ സUHകര�ക%ത�ന�യ� ഇകത�നട�പ� അയകന.” As revealed from Ext.P21(a) report, there was no objection from any corner concerning the functioning of the temple up to 2018. It is, however, stated therein that if the temple is permitted to function, the members of the fourth respondent council may raise objections. It is seen from the report that the local people have objections against the large number of devotees coming to the temple which does not have the permission of the District Authorities. Though Ext.P21(a) refers to the nature of the religious ceremonies performed in the temple which are objected to by the local people, the finer particulars of the same are not divulged. Ext.P21(b) report indicates that only a faction of the public have objections against the functioning of the temple. The Sub Collector has, however, reported that if the police can tackle the law and order issues that may arise on account of the objections from the local people, permission can be granted. Ext.P1(c) report indicates that if the temple is permitted to function, there is likelihood of clashes WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 7 between the members of the petitioner and the members of the fourth respondent, the action council. 7. The right to pursue religious practices subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, is a fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens. The members of the petitioners are also entitled to the said right. It is in terms of the Government Order referred to in paragraph 2 above that the petitioners have applied for permission to the first respondent. The short question is as to whether the first respondent was justified in declining the permission sought by the petitioners for the reasons stated in Ext.P20. The objective of the guidelines, in terms of which the first respondent declined the permission sought by the petitioners reads thus: “The biggest challenge to democracy is the threat to communal harmony by frustrated elements resorting to competitive communalism resulting to communal violence which leads to loss of lives and properties. In this context it is imperative on the part of the State to evolve guidelines to be adopted by the District administration to equip themselves to deal with communal violence firmly and at the same time to promote Communal Harmony for peaceful co-existence to bring about unity even in diversity. The following guidelines are issued earmarking the role of different agencies to deal with communal violence and also for promoting communal harmony.” It is thus clear that the objective of the executive order is to deal with communal violence and for promoting communal harmony. Of course, WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 8 if the religious practices pursued by the petitioners are against public order, morality and health or other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, the same can be prevented, as the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution to the members of the petitioners will not be available to them to follow such religious practices. From the contents of the reports relied on by the first respondent which are extracted in this judgment and the inference made by the first respondent from the said reports, it is seen that the district authorities maintain that there would be law and order issues in the area if devotees are allowed to offer worship in the temple. It is trite that law and order is entirely different from communal harmony and public order. The purpose of the guidelines referred to above is only to protect communal harmony and not to maintain law and order. The law and order is the responsibility of the State. The State cannot decline permission to establish a religious place, especially in a private land, merely for the reason that certain people in the locality do not like. [See **Fr. Geevarghese v. District Collector** 2014(4) KLT 553]. So long as the religious practices followed in the temple would not go against public order, morality and health or other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, the petitioners are entitled to the permission sought for. In the said view of the matter, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 9 In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to extend to the samithi the permission sought by them. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR** PKK **JUDGE** WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 10 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 14.11.2007 OF SREE KOCHU MALAYALAPUZHA DEVI KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, KARAMANA.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2015 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.27163/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IS (UNDATED).** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.02.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABNLE COURT DATED 19.04.2016 IN WPCNO.14980/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2016 IN WPC NO.14980/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2016 IN WPC NO.29149/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.09.2016 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2016 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2016 IN WPC NO.3367/2016 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2017.** WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 11 **EXHIBIT P13** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.16945/2017 DATED 16.09.2017.** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2017 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.35366/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER WITH DATE 02.11.2017 HANDED OVER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEMOM TO THE PETITIONERS ON 10.11.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT DATED 15.11.2017 TO MR.SATHISH BABU.** - **EXHIBIT P16 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE POLICE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT SPECIAL BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **EXHIBIT P16 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA POLICE STATION(UNDATED).** - **EXHIBIT P16 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, TRIVANDRUM.** - **EXHIBIT P16 (d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM.** - **EXHIBIT P16 (e) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FILE IN WHICH THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR MR.JOHN SAMUAL HAS RECORDED THE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF HEARING WHICH LEAD TO THE ISSUANCE OF EXT.P15.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.37778/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN R.P.NO.996/2018 N WPC NO.37778/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S11-3745/2016 DATED 29.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.** WP[C] No. 16134 OF 2019 12 **EXHIBIT P21 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 01.03.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P21 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COLLECTOR DATED 10.12.2018. EXHIBIT P21 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 05.01.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**