St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Cherukunnam v. State of Kerala and Others

**PRESENT** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 11TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022** ## **- PETITIONERS :** |**1**|**ST.THOMAS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH**| |---|---| ||**CHERUKUNNAM, (CHERUKUNNAM CHURCH),**| ||**ELAVAMPADAM P.O, ALATHUR, ALATHUR TALUK,**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 684.**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR FR. POLY VARGHESE.**| |**2**|**FR.POLY VARGHESE, AGED 54 YEARS,**| ||**VICAR, ST.THOMAS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH,**| ||**CHRUKUNNAM, S/O. LATE VARGHESE, THELAPPILLIL HOUSE,**| ||**SOUTH KORATTY P.O, THRISSUR-680 308.**| **BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER TINA ALEX THOMAS HARIMOHAN** ## **- RESPONDENTS :** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY**| |---|---| ||**THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**3**|**ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.**| |**4**|**THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND STATE POLICE CHIEF,**| ||**POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**5**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,**| ||**PALAKKAD- 678 001.**| |**6**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF**| ||**DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.**| |**7**|**SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE**| ||**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,**| ||**OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679 101.**| |**8**|**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER**| ||**OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 ## -: 2 :- ## **PALAKKAD- 678 001.** - **9 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALATHUR P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 541.** - **10 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (SHO) MANGALAM DAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 683.** - **11 VILLAGE OFFICER KIZHAKKENCHERY-II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD - 678 541.** - **12 FR. THOMAS PULAYATH, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KURIAN, PULAYATH HOUSE, AYAMPARA, KUNDUKAD P.O, THRISSUR - 680 028.** - **13 T. T. PATHROSE, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, THADIKKULANGARAYIL HOUSE, KARINKAYAM P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 706.** - **14 BAIJU K. K, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KURUVILA, KUZHIKATTIL HOUSE, MALLUCODE, ELAVAMPADAM P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 684.** - **15 JOY, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.ULAHANNAN, APPATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ELAVAMPADAM P.O., KIZHAKENCHERY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.** - **16 K.C. PAULOSE, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.CHACKO, KOLLARMALI HOUSE, ELAVAMPADAM P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.** - **17 N.M. MATHEW, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.MATHAI, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, ELAVAMPADAM P.O., VAKKALA, PALAKKAD - 678 706.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN ((PALAYIL) SRI.SREENATH VIJAYARAGHAVAN SRI.P.V.ELIAS SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **10.1.2023, THE COURT ON 31.1.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 3 :- ## JUDGMENT ## Dated this the 31st day of January, 2023 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :- - “(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 5, 7, 8 and 11 to hand over the administration and management of the 1[st] petitioner Church to the 2[nd] petitioner. - (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, compelling respondents 1 to 11 to render adequate and sufficient police protection to the life of 2[nd] petitioner and other Clergy including the Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates, Metropolitans and the Catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Church appointed under the 1934 Constitution to conduct religious services in the 1[st] petitioner church, its cemetery, Parish hall and kurishadies and also to the life of the Parishioners of the 1[st] petitioner church who swear and declare allegiance to the 1934 Constitution, in participating in such religious services without any obstruction, interruption or hindrance from respondents 12 to 17, their men, agents or followers of Jacobite faction and anybody claiming or acting under them in the interest of justice and to the properties of the 1[st] petitioner church by preserving it from the illegal acts of respondents 12 to 17, or anybody acting under them. - (iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 11 to act strictly adhering to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 (3) KLT 261 (SC) ensuring that no priests or prelates appointed otherwise than in accordance with the Malankara Orthodox Church Constitution of 1934 conduct any sacraments including Holy Mass in the 1[st] petitioner church, its parish hall, cemetery or any other appurtenant buildings thereto.” WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 4 :- 2. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as instructed by Sri.Roshan D. Alexander and Sri.Asok M. Cherian, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as Sri.O. V. Radhakrishnan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 12 to 17 as instructed by Sri.P. Vijayaraghavan. 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the 1[st] petitioner, St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church situated in Cherukunnam in Alathur Taluk of Palakkad District is one of the churches of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church established in the year 1952 and is included as Serial No.855 in the list of 1064 churches under the Sabha (as appended in O.S. No.142/1974). It is submitted that Ext.P1 is the Kalpana of the Diocesan Metropolitan, Thrissur Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Church appointing the 2[nd] petitioner as the Vicar of the 1[st] petitioner Church. It is stated that the 7[th] respondent had attached the 1[st] petitioner church in the year 1999 and entrusted it to the receivership of the 11[th] respondent under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as evidenced by Exts.P5 and P6 orders. It is submitted that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Malankara Churches shall be governed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution of the WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 5 :- Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, though the petitioners had approached the 7[th] respondent several times for return of administration of the church, the 7[th] respondent had refused the same. It is submitted that none of the Vicars lawfully appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan of the Thrissur Diocese in accordance with the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church were permitted to enter the premises of the Church or to conduct religious services by the sympathizers of the patriarch faction also. 4. It is stated that aggrieved by the continuous obstruction and violation of law caused by the patriarch faction, three parishioners filed O.S. No.444/2012 before the Sub Court, Palakkad after obtaining leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Later, the suit was transferred to the 1[st] Additional District Court, Ernakulam (Special Court assigned for handling church cases) and was re-numbered as O.S. No.5/2017 on the files of the 1[st] Additional District Court, Ernakulam. After the transfer of the suit, the defendants in the suit filed I.A. No.5965/2017 for revoking the leave already granted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The 1[st] Additional District Court allowed the application, revoked the leave and struck off the suit from the file by Ext.P7 order, which was challenged in FAO No.101/2018 along WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 6 :- with three other similar matters. Ext.P8 common judgment was rendered by this Court on 10.7.2018 in FAO No.96/2018 and connected cases. An SLP was filed against Ext.P8. Leave was granted and the Civil Appeal was numbered. However, in the meanwhile, the decision in K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church and others [(2017) 15 SCC 333] had been rendered by the Apex Court. The Civil Appeals were, therefore, disposed of by Ext.P9 order, which reads as follows :- “As the controversy in question has been finally decided in the case of K.S.Verghese Vs. St.Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orth. & Ors. in C.A. No.3674 of 2015 etc. decided on 3[rd] July, 2017 [2017 (15) SCC 333], which holds the field, nothing further survives in the matters for adjudication. Consequently, the appeals stand disposed of in view of the above judgment. Let all the concerned courts and authorities act in terms of the judgment. Let there be no multiplicity of the litigation on this aspect any more in the various courts. The decision rendered in representative suit is binding on all.” 5. It is submitted that since the 2[nd] petitioner is the lawfully appointed Vicar as per the 1934 Constitution, he was entitled, on the basis of Ext.P9 order in the Civil Appeal, to discharge his duties as such. It is stated that since the 7[th] respondent had not taken any steps to withdraw the attachment on the church and hand over the possession to the 2[nd] petitioner to conduct religious services, the 2[nd] petitioner along with the Secretary and Trustee of the 1[st] petitioner WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 7 :- church submitted Exts.P10 and P13 representations before the official respondents, but no steps were taken thereon. It is submitted that respondents 12 to 17 and their men forcefully prevented the 2[nd] petitioner from entering the Church and performing his duties. They had tried to re-agitate the question settled by the Apex Court by filing further litigations. When respondents 12 to 17 publicly threatened that parishioners who follow 1934 Constitution will be physically prevented from facilitating and attending the religious services to be conducted by the 2[nd] petitioner even if the church is handed over to the 2[nd] petitioner, the petitioners had approached the police seeking necessary assistance for effectuating the decree of the Apex Court, but no steps were taken on the same. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the police are duty bound to afford adequate assistance to see that the directions of the Apex Court are complied with in full and that the refusal to do so is completely inexcusable. 6. Respondents 12 to 16 have filed a counter affidavit contending that the church in question is St.Thomas Jacobite Syrian Church, Cherukunnam and that the contesting party respondents 12 to 16 are the parishioners of the said church. It is stated the 17[th] respondent passed away. It is submitted that there is no WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 8 :- allegation with regard to breach of peace at the instance of respondents 12 to 16 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and that therefore, no orders can be passed on the same. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 12 to 16 places reliance on the decision in Aligarh Municipal Board & ors. v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union & ors. [AIR 1970 SC 1767] to contend that the petitioners cannot file a writ petition when the very same issue is pending in Contempt before the Apex Court. The decision in Moran Mar Baselious Mathews II v. State of Kerala [2003 (1) KLT 780] ( overruled ) is also relied on to contend that the scope of Mandamus is limited. The decision in State of U. P. v. Nawab Hussain [AIR 1977 SC 1680] is relied on to contend that constructive res judicata would apply in writ proceedings as well. A decision of this Court in K. C. Thomas v. Superintendent of Police [1980 KLT 151] is relied on to contend that questions of right cannot be adjudicated by the police and where there is a genuine civil dispute, the police cannot be directed to decide any issues. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in The Malankara Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. Appachan Varghese & others [1988 (2) KLJ 295] is also relied on to contend that the police can only maintain law and order and prevent commission of offences, but the WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 9 :- factual question as to who has committed offences, if any, cannot be decided by the police. The decisions in Kochupennu Ambujakshi & another v. Velutha Kunju Vasu Channar & ors. [1992 (2) KLJ 606], George Mirante v. State of Kerala [1990 (2) KLT 89], Prabhu v. Indira [1994 (2) KLT 75] and Thrissur Expressway Limited v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLT 702] are also relied on to contend that cases of a civil nature cannot be decided by the police and no writ petition for police protection would be maintainable. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is only due to the disputes raised by the opposing factions and the chance of law and order issues arising that further action in the matter was not taken on the requests made by the petitioners. It is submitted that the police and the state administration are fully bound by the decisions of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church and others. However, it is contended that at present, there is no breach of peace and that the assistance, as required by the petitioners, may lead to a breach of peace, which is the reason why the same has not been enforced. 9. I have considered the contentions advanced. I notice that the instant case is admittedly one, where a civil suit had been filed in the representative capacity before the Sub Court, Palakkad where leave was granted under Section 92. The suit was WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 10 :- transferred to the 1[st] Additional District Court, Ernakulam and renumbered. Thereafter, an I.A. was filed to revoke the leave already granted, which was allowed. The matter was taken before this Court in FAO and a common judgment was rendered dismissing the FAO and upholding the revocation of the leave and the removal of the case from the list. The Apex Court granted leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and disposed of the Civil Appeal by Ext.P9 order. In the above factual background, the respondents cannot raise contentions regarding the identity of the church and regarding its status as one of the constituent churches of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. 10. With regard to one of the churches covered by the common judgment in the FAO, Ext.P26 judgment has been rendered by this Court considering almost identical contentions. The contention that the Church in question is not a constituent church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Sabha and that the contesting respondents therein including the 14[th] respondent who was the lawfully appointed Vicar were considered by this Court. In the absence of documents to show that the 14[th] respondent therein was appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution and relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Mar Miletius Yuhanon v. Mar Thomas Dionysious & Ors. [2020 (4) KHC 14] and WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 11 :- in Marthoman Church, Mulanthuruthy & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2020 (3) KHC 448], this Court held that it is the duty of the police to see that law and order which is a matter of governance is maintained by all citizens. It was found that the civil court does not have the machinery to see that all decrees are executed. If there is an illegal obstruction to the execution of a decree, police assistance for the purpose can be ordered. Where the Apex Court has specifically declared the law and has held that the law laid down is applicable to all the constituent churches under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the respondents cannot raise contentions against the findings already rendered by the Apex Court specifically stating that such directions are intended to operate in respect of all such churches. 11. It is true that in a case where there are bona fide disputes with regard to the nature and identity of the property involved, this Court would not be justified in directing police protection to be granted or in attempting to resolve such bona fide disputes in proceedings under Article 226. However, when the objections raised are only for the purpose of frustrating the proper enforcement of binding orders of the Apex Court, this Court would not be powerless to pass appropriate orders to see that the directions of the Apex Court are complied with by all concerned. In WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 12 :- the instant case, the contention that the decree has to be executed through the machinery for execution provided under the CPC would also not be an acceptable contention in the light of the specific directions contained in Ext.P9 order of the Apex Court. 12. In the instant case, the church in question is admittedly a church coming under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Sabha being Serial No.855 in the list of 1064 churches enumerated in the decisions especially in K.S. Varghese's case supra. The contention is that the church at Cherukunnam is a Jacobite church and that the petitioners have no right to possession of the same. However, no material is on record to show that the 12[th] respondent has been appointed as Vicar of the St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. If that be so, the attempt of the party respondents and their contentions in the counter affidavit can only be seen as a ruse to get over the binding directions of the Apex Court. The contention that a Contempt Petition is pending before the Apex Court and therefore, the writ petition would not be maintainable is also completely untenable since the filing of a Contempt of Court Case by some other beneficiaries of the judgment cannot be a ground for the contesting respondents, who were the party respondents in the FAO and the SLP to contend that they will not comply with the binding directions of the Apex Court. WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 13 :- 13. I find from the pleadings on record that the party respondents are only attempting to delay the matter and that they have not raised any sustainable contentions which can be considered by this Court in these proceedings. Only a bona fide dispute as regards the identity of the property can be a bar to this Court considering a prayer for police protection especially in view of the binding directions of the Apex Court in the nature of the directions issued in the instant case in the SLP. In the instant case, the church in question being the subject matter of a Section 92 suit which has now been finally decided by Ext.P9, the questions raised as to the identity of the church cannot be seen as a bona fide dispute and can only be termed as delaying tactics. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the findings of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese's case which have become final, I am of the opinion that the contentions taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced. 14. It is clear from the pleadings on record that the 11[th] respondent is continuing as a Receiver of the church and that the keys of the church are in the custody of the 7[th] respondent. In view of the unequivocal findings in K.S. Varghese's case supra and in the light of Ext.P9 order of the Apex Court directing all courts and authorities to act in terms of the said judgment, I am of the opinion WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 14 :- that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as sought for. The police and the District administration are duty bound to see that the binding directions of the Apex Court are given effect to in full. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the police to see that appropriate steps are taken in compliance with Ext.P9 order. The 7[th] respondent shall hand over the keys of the church and the possession of the same to the 2[nd] petitioner who has produced his orders of appointment as Vicar of the church as duly authorised by the functionaries under the 1934 Constitution. Adequate protection will be granted to the 2[nd] petitioner who is the lawfully appointed Vicar of the Church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution to enter the Church and to carry out the religious services in the Church without let or hindrance from respondents 12 to 16 or anybody claiming through them. Appropriate steps shall be taken by the respondents to comply with the directions within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/13.1.2023 WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 ## -: 15 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11996/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO. 51/PRTR/21 DTD. 02.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE DIOCESAN METROPOLITAN, THRISSUR DIOCESE OF MALANKARA ORTHODOX CHURCH APPOINTING THE 2ND PETITIONER AS THE VICAR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER CHURCH. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.04.2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3986 - 3989 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN FR. ISSAC MATTAMEL COR EPISCOPA REPORTED IN 2019 (10) SCC 606. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT ALONG WITH THE LIST OF CHURCHES IN O.S NO.142/1974 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 19.06.1999 IN M.C. NO. 30/99(1) ISSUED UNDER SECTION 145 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ( ALONG WITH TYPED COPY) - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 19.06.1999 IN M.C. NO. 30/99(2) ISSUED UNDER SECTION 146 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ALONG WITH TYPED COPY) - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17.03.2018 IN I.A NO. 5965/2017 IN O.S NO. 5/2017 ON THE FILES OF1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 10.07.2018 IN FAO NOS. 101 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 26.02.2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2446/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 08.09.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 ## -: 16 :- ||SECRETARY AND TRUSTEE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER| |---|---| ||CHURCH BEFORE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 8.| |Exhibit P11|TUE COPY OF THE AD CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF| ||EXT.P10 REPRESENTATION BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.292 DTD. 09.09.2021| ||WITH TAPAL NO.289501/21 ISSUED BY THE 8TH| ||RESPONDENT FOR RECEIVING EXT.P10.| |Exhibit P13|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11.11.2021| ||SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AND OTHERS| ||BEFORE RESPONDENTS 4, 6, 8, 9 AND 10.| |Exhibit P14|TRUE COPY OF THE AD CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF| ||EXTS.P13 REPRESENTATION BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT| ||ON 18.11.2021.| |Exhibit P15|TRUE COPY OF THE AD CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF| ||EXT.P13 REPRESENTATION BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON| ||15.11.2021.| |Exhibit P16|TRUE COPY OF THE AD CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF| ||EXT.P13 REPRESENTATION BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT ON| ||15.11.2021.| |Exhibit P17|TRUE COPY OF THE AD CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF| ||EXT.P13 REPRESENTATION BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT| ||ON 15.11.2021.| |Exhibit P18|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03.12.2019| ||REPORTED AS FR. THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN V. DISTRICT| ||COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM & OTHERS; 2020 (3) KLT| ||124.| |Exhibit P19|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT REPORTED IN MARTHOMAN| ||CHURCH V. STATE OF KERALA, 2020 (3) KLT 231.| |Exhibit P20|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 29.07.2020 IN COC| ||NO.777/2020.| |Exhibit P21|TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 10.08.2020| ||IN CC NO.777/2020.| |Exhibit P22|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12.08.2020 IN W.A| WP(C) NO.11996 OF 2022 -: 17 :- ||NO. 1046/2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE| |---|---| ||COURT.| |Exhibit P23|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22.06.2020 IN W.P.| ||(C) NO.11182/2020.| |Exhibit P24|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 16.07.2020 IN| ||W.P.(C) NO.11182/2020.| |Exhibit P25|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12.08.2020 IN W.P.| ||(C) NO.27219/2020.| |Exhibit P26|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12.08.2020 IN| ||W.P.(C) NO.8528/2019.| |Exhibit P27|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12.08.2021 IN| ||W.P.(C) NO. 35613/2019 AND W.P.(C) NO.| ||19419/2021.| |Exhibit P28|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 03.01.2019 IN W.P.| ||(C) NO. 30474/2018.|