Subhash R. and others v. Government of India and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 24300 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SUBHASH.R, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KAITHAKUNNATHU VEEDU, ERATHU VADAKKU, PATTAZHY P.O., KOLLAM 691 522.** - **2 A.R. ARUN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN NAIR.G., ASHA BHAVAN, ERATHU VADAKKU, PATTAZHY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 522.** - **3 RENJITHA RATHEESH, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.R. RATHEESH CHANDRAN, KOLOOR VEEDU, KANNIMEL, PATTAZHY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 522.** - **4 PREETHA KUMARI, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, RAHUL BHAVAN, THAZHATHU VADAKKU, PATTAZHY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 691 522.** - **BY ADVS.R.KRISHNA RAJ E.S.SONI KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR RESMI A.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, PETROLEM AND EXPLOSIVE SAFETY ORGANISATION A & D WING, BLOCK 1-8, 2ND FLOOR, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELGI - 110001.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA 691 013.** - **4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS (ROADS), KOLLAM, KERALA 691 001.** - **5 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001.** 2 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 - **6 TRAVANCOERE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.** - **7 PATTAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PATTAZHI, KOLLAM-691 522.** - **8 PATTAZHIKSHETHRA UPADESAKASAMITHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ENATH ARATTUPUZHA, PATTAZHYROAD, PATTAZHY, KERALA-691 522.** - **9 M/S. NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED, (MATHIYOTTU FUELS), INFRA FUTURA BUILDING, 602, 6TH FLOOR, OPP. BHARATA, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRESS. MANJU RAHIM.** - **10 ADDL. MANJU RAHIM W/O. RAHIM, AGED 41 YEARS,RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, P.O. VALACODE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691331 AND NOW RESIDING AT MATHYOTTU HOUSE, ERATHUVADAKKU, PATTAZHY, KOLLAM-691522.** - **11 ADDL.R11. RAHIM, S/O. JALALUDEEN, AGED 42 YEARS,RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, P.O. VALACODE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691331 AND NOW RESIDING AT MATHYOTTU HOUSE, ERATHUVADAKKU, PATTAZHY, KOLLAM-691522.** - **(ADDL.R10 AND R11 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1711-2021 IN IA NO.1/2021).** **BY ADVS.SRI.MANU.S, CGC** **SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).** - **N.UNNIKRISHNAN, ABDUL JABBARUDEEN.M** **S.K.PREMRAJ, S.MANU, C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) V.SARITHA, P.M.MANASH REENU KURIAN, NEEMA NOOR MOHAMED JAIN VARGHESE, NAVAS JAN A.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI S RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER; SRI JAI GEORGE - ADV COMMISSIONER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 25.01.2022, THE COURT ON 23.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Anil K.Narendran, J. The petitioners, who are worshipers of goddess Bhadrakali of Pattazhy Temple in Kollam District, under the management of the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 approval dated 24.03.2021 granted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Society Organisation, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, for the proposed petroleum retail outlet of the 9[th] respondent M/s.Nayara Energy Limited, in the land comprised in Re-Survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhy Village, Pathanapuram Taluk; Ext.P4 order dated 27.07.2021 of the Town Planner, Kollam, granting layout approval to additional respondents 10 and 11 for the proposed petroleum retail outlet in the land having an extent of 13.96 Ares in Re-survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhy Village; and Ext.P5 consent to establish dated 10.02.2021 granted to M/s.Mathyottu Fuels, for the proposed petroleum retail outlet in the property comprised in Re-survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhy Village. The petitioners have also sought for a 4 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 7 to take necessary steps to see that the proposed petroleum retail outlet is relocated from Re-survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhy Village, in such a manner that its functioning will not affect the rituals of Pattazhy Temple; a writ of mandamus commanding the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take appropriate steps to see that regular rites and ceremonies of Pattazhy Devi Temple is carried out without any obstruction due to the establishment of the proposed petroleum retail outlet in Re-survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhy Village; and to direct respondents 1 to 7 to protect the land of the minor deity Bhadrakali of Pattazhy Temple having an extent of 41.8 Acres comprised in Re-survey No.419/17-2 (Old Survey Nos.210/12, 216/1/B, etc.) of Pattazhy Village belonging to Mannadi of Pattazhy Devaswom and maintain the same by evicting all the encroachers and take appropriate steps to secure the said property by protecting it from the encroachers and take adequate steps to ensure that the said property is exclusively used for temple purposes, in the light of Ext.P12 order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018. 5 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 1 to 7 have granted permission to the 9[th] respondent to establish a petroleum retail outlet in a plot which is situated hardly 50 metres away from Pattazhy Devi Temple, thereby effectively prohibiting an important ritual of that temple, namely, Pattazhy Kambam (fire works). In spite of repeated complaints, the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board as well as other authorities have not taken any action to shift that petroleum retail outlet to an appropriate place. In Ext.P9 decision taken by the 7[th] respondent Pattazhy Grama Panchayat, the District Authorities were requested to relocate the petroleum retail outlet. The main festivals of the temple are Kumba Thiruvathira and Meena Thiruvathira. During Meena Thiruvathira, the 'Swarnathirumudi' of goddess Bhadrakali will be taken out for procession. During Kumba Thiruvathira, a symbolic war between Bhadrakali and Dharikan will be performed after the 'Swarnathirumudi' of goddess Bhadrakali is taken out of the temple in procession. The symbolic war is called 'Pech', which will be followed by Kambam (fire works). It is believed that Kambam is a part of the war that takes place between goddess Bhadrakali and Dharikan, as it is a ritual for pleasing the goddess and admiring her for the victory in the 6 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 war. According to the petitioners, Kambam (fire works) is an inevitable part of the rituals that take place in Pattazhy Devi Temple, which is more than 500 years old and since then that ritual is part and parcel of the temple. Even when there was prohibition imposed by the State Government after ‘Puttingal tragedy’, symbolic Kambam has taken place in Pattazhy Devi Temple, with controlled explosion. 2.1. The 9[th] respondent submitted an application before the authorities to start petroleum retail outlet in the property situated in Re-survey No.419/17-2 (Old Survey No.210/12) of Pattazhy Village, which is situated hardly 50 meters away from the temple compound. The worshipers and residents of the locality were not aware about the application made by the 9[th] respondent. They came to know about the same only when some development activities started in that property. According to the petitioners, the 9[th] respondent obtained Exts.P3 and P4 permissions and Ext.P5 consent and Ext.P6 no-objection certificate from the official respondents, suppressing the existence of Pattazhy Devi Temple, where Kambam festival is an integral part of its rituals. 2.2 Immediately on getting information regarding the illegal acts of the 9[th] respondent, the worshipers of the temple 7 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 filed Ext.P8 representation before the 3[rd] respondent District Collector, pointing out these facts and requesting him to take immediate steps to relocate the petroleum retail outlet, and to withdraw the permission granted to the 9[th] respondent. The Grama Panchayat passed Ext.P9 resolution requesting the 3[rd] respondent District Collector to withdraw the permission granted to the 9[th] respondent to start the petroleum retail outlet at the present location and to see that the outlet is relocated. In spite of all these representations, the official respondents have not taken any action whatsoever. 2.3. The petitioners would contend that, as per the stipulations of the 5[th] respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the Public Works Department, Government of Kerala, petroleum retail outlet cannot be permitted to function in the present site. In Ext.P5 consent given by the Pollution Control Board, Condition No.5(11) stipulates that petroleum retail outlets shall not be located with a radial distance of 50 meters from schools, hospitals and residential areas/buildings designated as per local laws. As per the site plan approved by Pattazhy Grama Panchayat, 11 houses situated near the proposed petroleum retail outlet are located within the distance of 50 metres. The Public Works Department has 8 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 issued necessary instructions to the 9[th] respondent to carry out the construction considering the curve of the road, which abuts the plot in question. The 9[th] respondent has not complied with that condition. 2.4. The 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is bound to ensure that the rituals in the temple are protected and performed without any obstruction. The 8[th] respondent Temple Advisory Committee as well as the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board has not taken any steps against the illegal activities of the 9[th] respondent. The petitioners would contend that large extent of the property of Pattazhy Devaswom was taken over by the State Government, by enacting the Pattazhy Devaswom Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1961 (Ext.P11). The property in ReSurvey No.419/17 (Old Survey No.210/12) of Pattazhy Village, in which the 9[th] respondent is attempting to establish a petroleum retail outlet is included in the Schedule of properties exempted from the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, in effect, the 9[th] respondent is attempting to set up the petroleum retail outlet in the property of the deity. If the said retail outlet is allowed to set up in the present site, the ritual of Kambam will have to be stopped for ever, since, in the licence issued by 9 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 the Additional District Magistrate for the previous years (Ext.P10) for conducting Kambam, one of the conditions imposed is that all residential sites lying within 200 meters from the display site shall be vacated before the start of the display. 2.5. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Bishwanath v. Thakur Radha Ballabhali [AIR 1967 SC** **1044]** the petitioners would contend that, when a person representing the minor deity leaves it in the lurch, a person interested in the worship of idol can certainly be clothed with an adhoc power of representation to protect its interest. In **A.A.Gopalakrishnam v. Cochin Devaswom Board and others [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** the Apex Court held that, the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/ archaks/shebaith/employees. In **Nandakumar v. District Collector [2018 (1) KLT 1019]** this Court held that, when the question is as to whether the land vested in deities has been encroached upon and the land controlled by the Devaswom Boards and trustees are reduced to occupation by private persons or their agencies, the prior revenue records have to be looked into. 10 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 3. On 05.11.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India took notice on admission for the 1[st] respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 2 to 4, the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board took notice on admission for the 5[th] respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for the 6[th] respondent. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 7 to 9, returnable within three weeks. The learned Standing Counsel, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the respective Standing Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 were directed to get instructions. This Court granted an interim stay of all further construction of the petroleum retail outlet by the 9[th] respondent, in the property of the Devaswom having an extent of 48 cents comprised in Re-Survey No.419/17-2 (Old Survey No.210/12) of Pattazhy Village, for a period of one month. 4. On 11.11.2021, this Court allowed I.A.No.1 of 2021 filed by third parties seeking an order to get themselves impleaded as additional respondents 10 and 11. Along with that interlocutory application they have produced Exts.R10(a) 11 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 sale deed bearing No.741/15 of the Sub Registrar Office, Pattazhy, dated 15.06.2015; R10(b) judgment of this Court dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.(C)No.17820 of 2021; R10(c) order dated 29.10.2021 of the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam; and R10(d) series interim orders in W.P(C)No.18353 of 2021. The document placed on record as Ext.R10(c) is an order dated 29.10.2021 of the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, on the complaint made by Smt.Prabha Kumari and others against the proposed petroleum retail outlet. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.R10(b) judgment of this Court dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.(C)No.17820 of 2021, the Additional District Magistrate passed Ext.R10(c) order dated 29.10.2021, whereby that representation was rejected. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2021, it is alleged that, though a copy of Ext.R10(c) order was served on the writ petitioners herein, they have intentionally suppressed the same, in order to mislead this Court. By the order of this Court dated 11.11.2021, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.R10(c) order. 5. On 18.11.2021, the 9[th] respondent has filed counter affidavit, wherein it is pointed out that the petitioners have 12 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 fraudulently pleaded that the property in which the proposed fuel retail outlet is constructed is comprised in old Sy.No.210/12 of Pattazhy Village. As a matter of fact, the said property is comprised in old Sy.No.210/16 of Pattazhy Village. Exts.R10(a), R10(k) and R10(l) documents would show that the property admeasuring 13.96 Ares in Re.Sy.No.419/17-2 of Pattazhy Village of Pathanapuram Taluk, covered by Ext.R10(a) sale deed dated 15.06.2015, corresponds to old Sy.No.210/16. 5.1. The 9[th] respondent, which was earlier known as Essar Oil Limited, is now re-named as M/s.Nayara Energy Limited, as borne out by Ext.R10(o). The 9[th] respondent has been granted the right to market motor spirit and high speed diesel by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, vide Ext.R10(p). After obtaining Ext.P3 permission/approval from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation), all requisite permissions were obtained from the statutory authorities, as evident from Exts.P4 to P7 and Ext.R10(j). Despite all these, some miscreants under the leadership of the 1[st] petitioner have trespassed into the property and threatened additional respondents 10 and 11 that they would not be permitted to establish the petroleum retail outlet. They had obstructed the 13 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 work, which was in progress at that time. This led to the filing of W.P(C)No.18353 of 2021 before this Court, wherein additional respondents 10 and 11 were granted interim order for Police protection, vide Ext.R10(d) series of orders. It was on the strength of those interim orders that they have been carrying on the construction work of the petroleum retail outlet. The 1[st] petitioner herein is a party to that writ petition, who deliberately suppressed the pendency of that writ petition to somehow obtain favourable orders in this writ petition. 5.2. One Prabha Kumari, styling herself as a nearby resident, filed W.P(C)No.17820 of 2021 before this Court seeking an order restraining the 9[th] respondent and additional respondents 10 and 11 from constructing the petroleum retail outlet in the premises covered by Ext.R10(a), _inter alia_ , raising violation of Rule 144(5) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002; pollution and nuisance to immediate neighbours; alleged imminent danger to the public due to the sharp curve of the road; violation of the guidelines issued vide G.O. (Ms.)No.67/2020/PWD dated 16.10.2020; non obtaining the licence under Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and 14 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 other Services) Rules, 1996; and impeding with the rituals of Pattazhy Devi Temple and the safety of the devotees. 5.3. The prayers in W.P(C)No.17820 of 2021 were to quash the no-objection certificate issued by the Additional District Magistrate for starting the petroleum retail outlet in the property in Re-Survey No.419/17-2 of Pattazhy Village; to quash the building permit issued by the Pattazhy Grama Panchayat; to quash the consent granted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board; and to quash the layout approval and usage of the plot granted by the District Town Planner, Kollam. This Court, by Ext.R10(d) judgment dated 05.10.2021, disposed of W.P.(C)No.17820 of 2021, granting the petitioner therein liberty to file a representation before the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, narrating her grievances, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. On such representation being received, the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam was directed to consider the same, after issuance of notice to all the affected parties, including the 9[th] respondent herein, within three weeks from the date of receipt of that representation. The petitioner therein was also given liberty to challenge the building permit before the appropriate authority, in accordance with law. 15 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 5.4. The representation filed by Prabha Kumari, as directed in Ext.R10(d) judgment was disposed of vide Ext.R10(c) order 29.10.2021, in strict compliance with the direction contained therein. The petitioners herein were also parties, to whom notice of hearing were served. On the representation filed by Prabha Kumari, the petitioners herein were also heard by the Additional District Magistrate. Ext.R10(c) order was served on the petitioners herein, who intentionally suppressed the same, in order to mislead this Court somehow or other. In the counter affidavit filed by the 9[th] respondent, it is alleged that, the writ petitioner in W.P. (C)No.17820 of 2021 is only a mere name lender of the 1[st] petitioner herein. The construction work of the petroleum retail outlet is almost complete, expending huge amounts. What remains is only the commissioning of the petroleum retail outlet. The contention of the petitioners is that, the property comprised in Re-Survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhy Village bears old Survey No.210/12 of Pattazhy Village, which is a Devaswom land. The property covered by Ext.R10(a) sale deed bears old Sy.No.210/16 of Pattazhy Village, which is admittedly not a Devaswom land, going by the pleadings in the 16 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 writ petition and as evidenced by Exts.P1, R10(a), R10(k) and R10(l). 5.5. The 9[th] respondent obtained all statutory permits/consent granted after meticulous scrutiny of the files/records produced before the concerned statutory authorities. None of the permits/consent would not reflect any favouritism. Everything has been done in accordance with the statutory mandate and not prompted by extraneous consideration as alleged. The petitioners with a malafide intention shown the additional 10[th] respondent, Manju Rahim as the proprietress of the 9[th] respondent. The 9[th] respondent is a company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. 5.6. The 9[th] respondent would point out that, in **Reliance Industries Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Land Revenue and others [2007 (2) KLT 850]** this Court held that when an applicant for a new licence applies to the District Authority, with two copies of the site plan, as enjoined by Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, showing the location of the premises proposed to be licensed, for the No Objection Certificate, the District Authority shall grant such certificate, if he sees no objection. The nature of authority so exercised by 17 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 the District Authority is to ensure that the application conforms and satisfies the requisites for the grant of licence under the Petroleum Rules. Even if No Objection Certificate is not refused, the power vests with the Central Government to allow issuance of licence. Therefore, the District Authority has to confine his evaluation to the facts with reference to the Petroleum Rules. In Ext.R10(c) order, the District Authority repelled the contentions regarding the right to life of the immediate neighbours and those in the neighbourhood of the site of the proposed petroleum retail outlet and their right against pollution, clearly holding that no grounds are there, either in the Petroleum Act, 1934 or the Petroleum Rules, 2002, to sustain such a challenge against the No Objection Certificate issued under Rule 144. The 9[th] respondent would point out that, in **Emerson Cruz v. land Revenue Commissioner and others** [judgment dated 13.10.2015 in W.P(C)No.30818 of 2015] this Court held that to issue of No Objection Certificate under the Petroleum Rules, 2002, no consent need to be obtained from the neighbours and such a certificate could be granted, notwithstanding the protests of the local people. Similar view was taken in **Hidayatulla v.** 18 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 ## **Additional District Magistrate, Palakkad and others** [judgment dated 30.05.2017 in W.P.(C)No.9081 of 2017]. 5.7. Regarding the contention raised in the writ petition that, the proposed petroleum retail outlet would impede with the rituals of the Pattazhy Devi temple, the 9[th] respondent would contend that bursting of crackers and display of pyrotechnics happen much more at Swaraj Round, Thrissur than at Pattazhy. In Swaraj Round, there are three fuel stations within a close proximity, much less than the distance factor, when compared to the fuel station in the instant case. Bharat Petroleum has two outlets and Hindustan Petroleum has one. It has been decades and till date, there has been no impedement with the bursting of crackers and display of pyrotechnics for Thrissur Pooram festival. Being so, it would be too farcical to say that, the proposed petroleum retail outlet, which is situated much away from the premises of Pattazhy Devi Temple, would cause adverse impact and the safety of devotees will be under threat. The fear of the petitioners that fireworks and pongala in connection with the Temple festival may be affected and that, the grandeur, splendour and serenity of the temple would be ruffled are wholly misplaced. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has granted Ext.P3 19 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 approval after a comprehensive risk assessment. In **Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution v.** **Union of India and another [AIR 2005 SC 3136]** the Apex Court held that, festivals and ceremonies wherein fireworks and crackers are customarily burst can be accompanied by earmarking a place and time wherein and when all the people can come together and witness or view a show of fireworks, dispensing with the need of crackers being burst in residential areas, and that too which is done without any regard to timings. The said decision was followed by the decision of the Division Bench in **Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated on the Issue of Fireworks Tragedy in Puttingal Devi Temple [2016 (1) KLD 700]** . 6. By the order dated 17.11.2021, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct local inspection on 21.11.2021 at 12 O' clock and submit a report showing radial distance of Pattazhy Devi Temple from the filling point/dispensing unit/bend pipe of the proposed petroleum retail outlet of additional respondents 10 and 11. In the said order, it was made clear that the concerned officer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board shall furnish a copy of the site plan, which forms part of Ext.P5 consent to operate, to 20 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 the learned Advocate Commissioner, at the time of inspection. Pursuant to that order, the Advocate Commissioner conducted inspection on 21.11.2021 and submitted a report dated 22.11.2021 before this Court. 7. On 18.11.2021, additional respondents 10 and 11 have filed counter affidavit, raising contentions similar to that raised in the counter affidavit of the 9[th] respondent. They would contend that, since there is suppression of material facts and the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, they are not entitled for any discretionary reliefs and as such, none of the reliefs could be granted. In support of the said contention they would rely on the decisions of the Apex Court in **S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1]** and **Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]** . They would also contend that, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, the superior court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal and cannot interfere with the finding of fact, unless it is proved that it is wholly unsupported by evidence. In support of the said contention, they would rely on the decision of this Court in **Salim M.K. v.** **State of Kerala and others [2021 (4) KHC 597]** and the 21 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 decision of the Apex Court in **Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others [(2006) 10 SCC 201]** . 7.1. Additional respondents 10 and 11 would contend that, the challenge made by the petitioners are on the ground that the proposed petroleum retail outlet is constructed in the land in Re-Survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhy Village, which corresponds to old Survey No.210/12 of Pattazhy Village, falling within the ambit and scope of Pattazhy Devaswom Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1961, and that the proposed construction would impede with the rituals of Pattazhy Devi Temple and also the safety of the devotees. _Inter alia_ , the petitioners have vaguely pleaded violation of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, compromising safety to immediate neighbours and they would also contend that the proposed petroleum retail outlet cannot be constructed within a radial distance of 50 meters from residential buildings. The additional respondents would contend that the petitioners have no _locus standi_ to file this writ petition on the issues projected therein. A cursory glance of the writ petition would make it clear that same is nothing by a public interest litigation, wherein essential averments are conspicuously absent. Therefore, the petitioners have no _locus_ 22 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 _standi_ to seek any of the reliefs sought for. The petitioners have not shown that they have some interest or a special interest to complain of, in respect of the alleged illegality, which the members of the general public may not have. 7.2. Additional respondents 10 and 11 would contend that, if at all the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board feels that there is any encroachment, it is up to them to work out their remedies elsewhere and it cannot clothe the petitioners with any right or entitlement to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relying on a decision in **Najimi v.** ## **Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and others** **[2017 (1) KHC 672]** , additional respondents 10 and 11 would contend that, no jurisprudential articulation, except adhering to commonsense fired by the constitutional values including the Directive Principles of State Policy is required for the institutions under the Constitution of India to see through the veil to alert itself of the impending danger in the writ court entertaining such matters. Such covert access to writ jurisdiction deserves to be watched for and annihilated, rather than issue innocuously innocent writs. Additional respondents 10 and 11 would contend that the petitioners cannot maintain a writ petition seeking to protect the Devaswom lands, as 23 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 highly disputed question of facts would emerge, which would not be amenable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in **Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd and others v. Sukamani Das and another [(1999) 7 SCC 298]** and also in the judgment of this Court in **Nandakumar v. District Collector and others [2018 (1) KLT 1019]** . The disputed question of facts raised in the writ petition cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavits filed. For the reason that better materials to substantiate the petitioners contentions were not forthcoming, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the factual specifics, apart from already having called upon the official respondents to produce the entire files leading to Exts.P6 and R10(c). A threadbare scrutiny of records would conclude that there is no infraction of any constitutional rights of the petitioners or anyone else and no or public injury is suffered due to any mischievous executive actions, in connection with the construction of the petroleum retail outlet, as alleged. Respondents 10 and 11 are in joint right, title, ownership, possession, interest and enjoyment of the landed property admeasuring 13.96 Ares in Re-Survey No.419/17-2 of Pattazhy Village, Pathanapuram Taluk, vide Ext.R10(a) sale 24 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 deed. As stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 9[th] respondent, the proposed petroleum retail outlet is being established after obtaining all statutory requirements, as evidenced by the materials already on record. In the counter affidavit additional respondents 10 and 11 have adopted the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the 9[th] respondent and also the decisions relied on by the said respondent, in order to contend that this writ petition cannot be entertained, which has to be dismissed imposing exemplary cost. 8. On 24.11.2021, the 8[th] respondent Pattazhy Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithy has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the festivals conducted in the Temple on the day of Thiruvathira during the months of Kumbhom and Meenum are considered highly auspicious and thousands of devotees are attending it to get the blessings of the deity. Along with the counter affidavit, the 8[th] respondent produced Ext.R8(a) opinion of the Thanthri of Pattazhy Devaswom Temple, as per which fireworks (vedi vazhipadu) is an integral part of the custom and rituals of the temple, which can neither be avoided nor be shifted. 25 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 9. On 26.11.2021, the learned Standing Counsel for the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a statement, wherein it is stated that, Pattazhy Temple is known for its glory and legacy as a prominent Badrakali Temple in the southern Kerala. Kambam is an essential and integral part of the temple custom and it is a time immemorial practice. Vedivazipadu is an integral part of Pattazhy Temple, as evident from the pathivinpadi of that Temple. In Ext.R8(a) opinion of Thanthri it is pointed out that kambam is an essential practice of the temple, since time immemorial. 10. On 26.11.2021, the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 9[th] respondent and that filed by additional respondents 10 and 11. 11. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2021, additional respondents 10 and 11 have placed on record Exts.R10(e) to R10(p) additional documents. Along with I.A.No.3 of 2021, the petitioners have produced Exts.P13 and P14 documents. Additional respondents 10 and 11 have filed I.A.No.4 of 2021 producing therewith Ext.R10(q) FMB sketch of the properties, issued by the Village Officer, Pattazhy and Ext.R10(r) details of Devaswom lands in Pattazhy Village, in respect of which basic tax is paid. 26 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 12. On 26.11.2021, additional respondents 10 and 11 have filed I.A.No.5 of 2021, producing therewith Ext.R10(s) notice of intention to revoke the integrated consent to establish, issued by the Assistant Environmental Engineer of Kerala State Pollution Control Board, which is one dated 22.11.2021 and also Ext.R10(t) print out of the photograph of the building referred to in Ext.R10(s) notice. 13. On 26.11.2021, the Assistant Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board has filed a report dated 24.11.2021, wherein it is stated that, during the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner, it was noticed that the minimum distance criteria with respect to residences was not satisfied from the current location of the dispensers/filling point/vent pipe. The 9[th] respondent Industry Occupier had furnished false information to the Board and had suppressed information from the Inspecting Officer for obtaining the consent to establish. In the said circumstances, Annexure R5(k) notice of intention to revoke Ext.P5 consent to establish was issued on 22.11.2021. 14. The petitioners filed I.A.No.6 of 2021 seeking an order to accept Exts.P15 and P16 as additional documents. Additional respondents 10 and 11 have filed I.A.No.7 of 2021 27 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 seeking an order to accept Exts.R10(u) and R10(v) as additional documents. Additional respondents have also filed a counter affidavit, in view of Exts.P15 and P16 documents produced by the petitioners. 15. On 21.12.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, we have called for the Judges papers in W.P.(C) Nos.18353 of 2021 and also 17820 of 2021. The 1[st] petitioner herein is the 5[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.18353 of 2021 filed by respondents 9 to 10 herein seeking police protection. Though the address of the 1[st] petitioner herein is incorrectly shown in the cause title of that writ petition, he has filed a counter affidavit in that writ petition on 23.09.2021, in which his address is shown as Subhash Pattazhy, Son of Ramachandran Nair, Kaithakkunnathu Veedu, Erathuvadakku, Pattazhy, Kollm, Kerala - 691 522. 16. On 22.12.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, Adv.R.Krishna Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an affidavit of the 1[st] petitioner explaining the circumstances in which he along with others have filed this writ petition on 03.11.2021, without disclosing the pendency of W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021, in which he is arrayed as the 5[th] respondent, who has filed counter affidavit 28 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 dated 19.09.2021 through another counsel, will be placed on record by 23.12.2021. 17. On 23.12.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record an affidavit sworn to by the 1[st] petitioner, which is one dated 23.12.2021. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit read thus: “2. At the outset, I tender my unconditional apology before this Honourable Court for omitting to disclose the pendency of W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021 and my appearance in that case. Actually what happened was that, I have given instructions to file this case to Advocate R.Krishna Raj through his junior Advocate Resmi.A, who is also a resident of Pattazhy Desom. I have informed her about W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021 when I provided instructions to file the present case. Because of a communication gap, unfortunately this information was not passed on to Advocate R.Krishna Raj while preparing the case and it was in such circumstance the omission of the pendency of W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021 has occurred. I have never intended to suppress any material fact before this Honourable Court. 3. It is also pertinent to note here that non-mentioning of the above mentioned Writ Petition before the Single Bench would not have given me any advantage and at the same time I am bound to disclose the pendency of the above mentioned Writ Petition before this Honourable Court as I am not supposed to suppress the pendency of 29 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021. Whether the information regarding the pendency of the above case is required or not for the consideration of the present W.P.(C) No.24300 of 2021, I ought to have mentioned the pendency of W.P. (C)No.18353 of 2021 and about the filing of the counter affidavit in the same. But the omission has taken place because of the reason stated above and it is not a willful act or intention to suppress anything on my part. In the above circumstances, I again tender my unconditional apology to omit to mention about the pendency of W.P. (C)No.18353 of 2021 before this Honourable Court and it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to accept my apology and above explanation tendered by me.” 18. On 21.01.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, we have passed an order. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of that order read thus; “2. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.12.2021, it is stated that, he has given instruction to file this case to Adv.R Krishna Raj through his junior Adv.Reshmi A., who is also a resident of Pattazhy in Kollam district. The petitioner has informed her about the pendency of W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021. Because of a communication gap, this information was not passed on to Adv. R. Krishna Raj, while preparing this writ petition. 3. On 12.01.2022, we have perused the miscellaneous papers in this writ petition, in view of the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner. Though the place of execution is not mentioned in the vakkalath, from the affidavit filed in 30 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 support of this writ petition it is seen that the petitioner was personally present in the office of this counsel at Ernakulam, on 03.01.2021, the date on which this writ petition was moved before this Court. 4. As can be seen from the Judges Papers in W.P.(C) No.17820 of 2021, filed by one Prabha Kumari, which has already been disposed of by Ext.R10(b) judgment dated 05.10.2021, respondents 9 to 11 herein are arrayed as respondents 10 to 12 in that writ petition. The document marked as Ext.P12 in that writ petition is a copy of the resolution taken by Pattazhy Grama Panchayat, on 09.07.2021, whereby the District Magistrate was requested to reconsider the grand of No Objection Certificate for the petroleum retail outlet in question, since it will adversely affect the conduct of 'Kambam' in Pattazhy Temple. The said resolution is marked as Ext.P9 in this writ petition. Another contention raised in that writ petition is regarding violation of the Guidelines for Access Permission for Fuel Station along State Highways and Major District Roads, issued by the Public Works Department, Kerala. 5. During the pendency of that writ petition, respondents 9 to 11 filed W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021, seeking police protection. That writ petition was filed on 06.09.2021, after submitting a representation dated 30.08.2021 (Ext.P8) before the District Police Chief and others. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of that representation it is alleged that the 1st petitioner herein, who is arrayed as 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021, along with others are objecting the establishment of petroleum retail outlet in question, on the ground that there was some temple 31 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 within a radius of 250 meters. An averment to that effect, even without mentioning the name of the temple, is made in paragraph 4 of that writ petition. 6. From the files relating to Ext.R10(c) order dated 29.10.2021 of the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, which is made available for the perusal of this Court by the learned Senior Government Pleader, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.11.2021, it is seen that the objections filed by the Temple Advisory Committee was before the Additional District Magistrate, which is one dated 10.08.2021.” 19. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the 1[st] respondent, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Pollution Control Board appearing for the 5[th] respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board appearing for the 6[th] respondent, the learned counsel for the 7[th] respondent Grama Panchayat, the learned counsel for the 8[th] respondent Samithi and the learned counsel for respondent 9 and additional respondents 10 and 11. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the establishment of a petroleum retail outlet by the 9[th] respondent in the property owned by respondents 10 and 11 will adversely affect the performance of Pattazhy Kambam 32 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 (fireworks), which is an important ritual of Pattazhy Devi Temple. The 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, which has a statutory duty to ensure that regular rites and ceremonies of Pattazhy Devi Temple is carried out without any obstructions whatsoever, has not taken any action in that regard. Due to the inaction on the part of the 6[th] respondent Board the petitioners, who are the worshipers of Goddess of Bhadrakali of Pattazhy Temple has approached this Court in this writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. They are 'persons interested' in the Temple, within the purview of sub-clause (1) of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and they have _locus standi_ to file this writ petition before this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity, who is a perpetual minor, exercising inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of _parens patriae_ will also apply in exercising such jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the assets of Pattazhy Devi Temple, which are included in the schedule to Pattazhy Devaswom Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1961, i.e., the lands exempted 33 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 from the provisions of the said Act, has to be protected appropriately, as directed by the Apex Court in **Mrinalini** **Padhy v. Union of India [(2018) SCC OnLine 667]** . The learned counsel pointed out the averments in the affidavit filed by the 1[st] petitioner dated 23.12.2021 explaining the circumstances in which the 1[st] petitioner along with others filed this writ petition on 03.11.2021, without disclosing the pendency of W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021 in which he is arrayed as the 5[th] respondent. 21. The learned Senior Government Pleader for the official respondents submitted that, pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.R10(b) judgment of this Court dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.(C)No.17820 of 2021, the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam considered the representation made by Smt.Prabha Kumari and others against the proposed petroleum retail outlet and passed Ext.R10(c) order dated 29.10.2021, whereby that representation stands rejected. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board pointed out the issuance of Annexure R5(k) notice of intention to revoke Ext.P5 consent to establish issued on 22.11.2021, since it was noticed during the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner that the minimum distance criteria with respect 34 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 to residences was not satisfied from the current location of the dispensers/filling point/vent pipe and that, the 9[th] respondent Industry Occupier had furnished false information to the Board and had suppressed information from the Inspecting Officer for obtaining the consent to establish. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the 8[th] respondent reiterated the contentions raised in the statement/counter affidavit filed by the said respondents. 22. The learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11 contended that the petitioners have absolutely no _locus standi_ to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and it is for the 6[th] respondent-Travancore Devaswom Board to approach this Court with such a writ petition in case they are having a legal grievance against the establishment of petroleum retail outlet in the property in question by respondents 9 to 11. It is contended further that the objections raised by the petitioners would not come within the purview of the Petroleum Act, 1934 or the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and as such the petitioners are not legally entitled to challenge the no-objection certificate issued for establishing the proposed 35 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 petroleum retail outlet, which is one issued under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules. The contention in the writ petition that the said outlet would impede with the rituals of Pattazhy Devi Temple is absolutely untenable. Moreover, there is suppression of material facts and the petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands and as such, they are not entitled for any discretionary relief, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The conduct of the 1[st] petitioner in filing this writ petition, suppressing the pendency of W.P(C).No.18353 of 2021 filed by respondents 9 to 11 seeking police protection, in which he is arrayed as the 5[th] respondent, disentitle the petitioners from seeking any relief in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed imposing exemplary costs. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued Annexure R5(k) notice of intention to revoke the consent to establish issued to the 9[th] respondent dated 22.11.2021, without any valid reasons. 23. The grievance of the petitioners, who are worshipers of goddess Bhadrakali of Pattazhy Devi Temple under the management of the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is that the official respondents have granted 36 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 permission to respondents 9 to 11 to establish a petroleum retail outlet in a plot which is situated hardly 50 metres away from Pattazhy Devi Temple, thereby effectively prohibiting an important ritual of that temple, namely, Pattazhy Kambam (fire works). Among other reliefs, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 7 to take necessary steps to see that the proposed petroleum retail outlet is relocated from Re-survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhy Village, in such a manner that its functioning will not affect the rituals of Pattazhy Devi Temple; a writ of mandamus commanding the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take appropriate steps to see that regular rites and ceremonies of Pattazhy Devi Temple is carried out without any obstruction due to the establishment of the proposed petroleum retail outlet. The petitioners have also sought for an order to direct respondents 1 to 7 to protect the land of the minor deity Bhadrakali of Pattazhy Temple having an extent of 41.8 Acres comprised in Re-survey No.419/17-2 (Old Survey Nos.210/12, 216/1/B, etc.) of Pattazhy Village belonging to Mannadi of Pattazhy Devaswom and maintain the same by evicting all the encroachers and take appropriate steps to secure the said property by protecting it from the encroachers 37 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 and take adequate steps to ensure that the said property is exclusively used for temple purposes, in the light of Ext.P12 order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018. 24. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, substituted by the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, Part I of the Act shall extend to Travancore, Part II of the Act shall extend to Cochin and Part III of the Act shall extend to the whole of the State of Kerala, excluding the Malabar District. 25. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act defines the term ‘Board’ to mean the Travancore Devaswom Board constituted under Chapter II of the Act in accordance with the covenant. Clause (c) of Section 2 defines the term ‘incorporated Devaswoms’ to mean the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I, and ‘unincorporated Devaswoms’ to mean those Devaswoms including Hindu Religious Endowments whether in or outside Travancore which were under the management of the Ruler of 38 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 Travancore and which have separate accounts of income and expenditure and are separately dealt with. As per sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of Section 2, ‘person interested’ includes, in the case of temple, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat. 26. Chapter II of the Act deals with the Travancore Devaswom. Section 3 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in Board. As per Section 3, t he administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097 M.E. and the surplus fund constituted under the Devaswom (Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 M.E. which were under the management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, except the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Sree Pandaravaka properties and all other properties and funds of the said temple, and the management of all institutions which were under the Devaswom Department shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. 39 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 27. Section 4 of the Act deals with constitution of the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 4, the Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold and acquire properties for and on behalf of the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments under the management of the Board. 28. Section 15 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 15, subject to the provisions of Chapter III of Part I, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, in respect of Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per sub-section (2) of Section 15, the Board shall exercise all powers of direction, control and supervision over the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments under their jurisdiction. 29. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform 40 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. Section 16 of the Act deals with supervision and control by the Board. As per Section 16, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. 30. Section 24 of the Act deals with maintenance of Devaswoms, etc., out of Devaswom Fund. As per Section 24, the Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund constituted under Section 25, maintain the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I [i.e. incorporated Devaswoms], keep in a state of good repair the temples, buildings, and other appurtenances thereto, administer the said Devaswoms in accordance with recognised usages, make contributions to other Devaswoms in or outside 41 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 the State and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies and may provide for the educational uplift, social and cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community. 31. Section 27 of the Act deals with Devaswom properties. As per Section 27, immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as Devaswom Vaga or Devaswom Poramboke and such other Pandaravaga lands as are in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I after the 30[th] Meenam, 1097 corresponding to the 12[th] April, 1922, shall be dealt with as Devaswom properties. The provisions of the Land Conservancy Act of 1091 (IV of 1091) shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. 32. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. As per Section 31, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated, and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 42 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 33. In view of the provisions under the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act referred to hereinbefore, conclusion is irresistible that, the administration of Pattazhy Devaswom and all its assets and funds shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. The Board shall hold and acquire properties for and on behalf of Pattazhy Devaswom, under the management of the Board. Subject to the provisions of Chapter III of Part I, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, in respect of Pattazhy Devaswom shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Board shall exercise all powers of direction, control and supervision over the Devaswom. 34. Under the provisions of the Act, the Board is duty bound to see that regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Pattazhy Devi Temple are performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in Pattazhy Devi Temple for the devotees. The Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund, maintain and administer Pattazhy Devi Temple in accordance with recognised usages and meet the expenditure for the customary religious 43 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 ceremonies. Subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of Pattazhy Devaswom and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in Pattazhy Devi Temple according to the usage. 35. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. [See: **Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others** - **2018 (1) KHC 536]** 36. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The 44 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 37. In **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parents patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of 45 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 38. In **Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC** **OnLine SC 667]** - order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 649 of 2018 - the Apex Court noticed that the issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilisation of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all Shrines throughout the India, irrespective of religion practiced in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and there is a need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart from State Governments. Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 permits a court also to issue direction for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout the India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or by assigning the issue/matter to any other court under his/her jurisdiction examine above aspects and if necessary send a report to the 46 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 High Court. The High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as becomes necessary having regard to individual fact situation. 39. In **Nandakumar v. District Collector [2018 (2) KHC 58]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that the legal position has been made clear by the Apex Court as to the role to be played by the High Court in exercising the ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction in **Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** . The said decision was referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]** . In the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any assignment/conveyance has been effected without involvement of the Devaswom, securing ‘pattayam’ or such other deeds, the same cannot confer any right upon the parties concerned, unless the title so derived is clear in all respects. There cannot be any dispute that the remedy to retrieve such property belonging to the Devaswom is by resorting to the course stipulated in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. 47 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 40. Pattazhy Devaswom Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1961 was enacted by the State Legislature to provide for the enfranchisement of certain lands belonging to the Pattazhy Devi Temple and its Keezheedus and for the vesting in the Government of Kerala of certain other lands belonging to the said Temple and Keezheedus. As per Section 2 of the Act, n othing in this Act shall apply to the lands specified in the Schedule. Schedule of the said Act is extracted hereunder; ## **Schedule** (See Section 2) ## **Description of lands exempted from the provisions of the Act** |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|||**Survey**|**Survey**|**Extent**|**Extent**|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||**Taluk**|**Village**|**No. **|**Letter **|**Acre **|**Cents**|**Remarks**| |1.|Pathanapuram|Pattazhy|20|157|3|10|Kuttalamalamkavu<br>required for the conduct<br>of Kuravar Malakkuda<br>function in Meenam.| |2.|do|do|132|449|2|58|Pulikunnumala required<br>for the conduct of<br>Thullal and Poojas in<br>connection with the<br>Makayiram Thirunal<br>Festival in Kumbhom| |3.|do|do|176|6|1|10|Tank and its premises<br>(PattazhyDevaswom)| |4.|do|do|207|9A1|6|51|Pattazhy Temple site<br>and the buildings in it<br>(village office camp<br>shed and temple<br>buildings)| |5.|do|do|208|1|..|70|Site of Dewasom<br>Superintendent’s Office,<br>Pattazhy, and the<br>buildingin it.| |6.|do|do|210|11|..|20|Land on the eastern<br>side of Vadakke<br>Arapura.| |7.|do|do|207|3|..|85|Pathwayleading to| 48 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 ||||||||temple tank.| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |8.|do|do|210|12|..|48|Site of the Vadake<br>Arapura and the<br>buildings.| |9.|do|do|503|1|2|27|Site of Kundayam<br>temple (Keezheedu of<br>the Pattazhy Devaswom<br>and the building.| |10.|Kunnathoor|Kadamba<br>nad|407|1A|..|89|Site of Mannadi temple<br>and the buildings<br>therein.| |11.|Pathanapuram|Pattazhy|95|5|..|56|One mango tree and<br>one jack tree on road<br>poramboke, Thanathu-<br>leased out on short<br>term Kuthakapattom.| |12.|do|do|419|318||56|Thanthu land leased out<br>on short term<br>Kuthakapattom.| |13.|do|do|..|..|..||Nine trees standing on<br>the bunds at<br>Kanjirathingal, Yellah,<br>Neduvankulathu Yellah<br>and Chirakkakara<br>Yellah-Thanathu-leased<br>out on short term<br>Kuthakapattom| 41. The learned counsel for the respondents 9 to 11 submitted that the petitioners have fraudulently pleaded in the writ petition that the property in which the proposed fuel retail outlet is constructed is comprised in old Sy.No.210/12 of Pattazhy Village. As a matter of fact, the said property is comprised in old Sy.No.210/16 of Pattazhy Village. Exts.R10(a), R10(k) and R10(l) documents would show that the property admeasuring 13.96 Ares in Re.Sy.No.419/17-2 of Pattazhy Village of Pathanapuram Taluk, covered by Ext.R10(a) sale deed dated 15.06.2015, corresponds to old Sy.No.210/16. 49 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 42. We do not propose to dwell into the merits of the rival contentions on the above issue in this judgment, since any grievance of the petitioners regarding protection of the land of the minor deity of Pattazhy Devi Temple having an extent of 41.8 Acres, included in the schedule to Pattazhy Devaswom Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1961, can be raised before the jurisdictional District Judge, in view of the order of the Apex Court in **Mrinalini Padhy [(2018) SCC OnLine 667]** , who shall examine the above aspects and, if found necessary, send a report to this Court for issuing judicial directions, if any, having regard to the fact situation. In view of the aforesaid remedy open to a devotee of minor deity Bhadrakali of Pattazhy Devi Temple, we make it clear that any devotee of the minor deity can move the jurisdictional District Judge with their grievance on the above aspect, which shall be dealt with appropriately by that authority, in terms of the directions contained in the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, with notice to the alleged encroaches. 43. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 7 to take necessary steps to see that the proposed petroleum retail outlet is relocated from Re-survey No.419/17-2, Block No.5 of Pattazhy 50 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 Village, in such a manner that its functioning will not affect the rituals of Pattazhy Temple and also a writ of mandamus commanding the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take appropriate steps to see that regular rites and ceremonies of Pattazhy Devi Temple is carried out without any obstruction due to the establishment of the proposed petroleum retail outlet in the said property. Their grievance is that the official respondents have granted permission to the 9[th] respondent, vide Ext.P3 approval dated 24.03.2021, Ext.P4 layout approval dated 27.07.2021, Ext.P5 consent to establish dated 10.02.2021 to establish a petroleum retail outlet in a plot which is situated hardly 50 metres away from Pattazhy Devi Temple, thereby effectively prohibiting an important ritual of that Temple, namely, Pattazhy Kambam (fire works). 44. According to the petitioners, in spite of repeated complaints, the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board as well as the official respondents have not taken any action to shift that petroleum retail outlet to an appropriate place. The petitioners would point out Ext.P9 decision taken by the 7[th] respondent Pattazhy Grama Panchayat, in the meeting held on 07.09.2021, whereby the 3[rd] respondent District Collector was requested to relocate the petroleum retail outlet in such a 51 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 manner that its functioning will not affect the rituals of Pattazhy Devi Temple, namely, Kambam (fire works). According to the petitioners, Kambam is an inevitable part of the ritual that takes place in Pattazhy Devi Temple, which is more than 500 years old. Since then Kambam is part and parcel of the Temple. It is believed that Kambam is a part of the war that takes place between goddess Bhadrakali and Dharikan, as it is a ritual for pleasing the goddess and admiring her for the victory in the war. 45. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the 8[th] respondent Pattazhy Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithy Exhibit R8(a) opinion dated 10.10.2021 of the Temple Thantri, Brahma Sri Thazhamon madom Kantaru Rajeevaru, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom, Kottaarakara is produced, in which the Thantri opined that fireworks (vedi vazhipadu) is an integral part of custom and rituals of the temple which can neither be avoided nor be shifted. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that, the festival conducted on the day of Thiruvathira during the months of Kumbhom and Meenum are considered highly auspicious and thousands of devotees are attending it to get the blessings of the deity. Thousands of devotees, especially women devotees, are 52 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 attending the festival to lit fire for the famous ponkala vazhipadu. In connection with this ritual, thousands of fire pots are ignited in and around the Pattazhy Devi Temple, on either side of the road within a radius of one kilometer from the premises of the temple. Large number of pilgrims on their pilgrimage to Sabarimala take shelter at Pattazhy Temple and offer their worship before proceeding to Sabarimala. 46. In the counter affidavit filed by the 8[th] respondent it is stated that, now the apprehension of the devotees is that due to the proximity of highly inflammable and explosive substances kept in the proposed petroleum retail outlet, restrictions may be imposed in offering the century old conventional pongala. The devotees are also afraid that the ritualistic fireworks may also have to be stopped in future. In the meeting of Pattazhy Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithy held on 10.11.2021, it was unanimously decided to authorise the Secretary of the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithy to file a statement before this Court highlighting the concern of the devotees with regard to proposed functioning of the petrol pump. 47. In the statement filed on behalf of the 6[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, it is stated that, 53 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 Pattazhy Devi is considered as a revered deity, and the very fact that Kambam has to be done away with would certainly impinge on the very foundation of the Temple rituals and customs. Kambam (fire works) is an essential and integral part of the Temple custom and it is a time immemorial practice. Ext.R8(a) opinion of the Thantri, who is the legal guardian of the deity, which can be considered as the final word as far as the essential practice in a temple is concerned, is to the effect that Kambam is an essential practice of the Temple since time immemorial. Vedivazipadu is an integral part of Pattazhy Temple, as evident from pathivinpadi of the said temple. Pathivinpadi of the said vedikettu is Rs.25/- and every devotees is bound by the custom to pay the pathivinpadi to the deity. The tarred road leading to Pattazhy Devi from PattaziEnathu road, having an extent of 15 cents, comprised in Sy.No.1453/3 and 1453/4 of Pattazhy Village, belongs to the Devaswom. From the said tarred road, which belongs to the Devaswom, there is hardly 15 meters distance to the proposed petroleum retail outlet. Though, in Revenue records the said land is not shown as Devaswom land, the tarred road is used only for Devaswom purpose. As per Section 27 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 all 54 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 lands which are in the possession and use of the Devaswom will be treated as Devaswom land. 48. In the statement filed by the 6[th] respondent, it is stated that, as per Explosive Rules, 2008, there exists an additional condition that, all residential structures within 200 meters distance should be vacated before the firework starts. The construction of the petroleum retail outlet would eventually violate that condition. Therefore, it would be difficult to get permission for vedikettu (fire works) in future, if the petroleum retail outlet is constructed there. Respondents 1 and 5 granted licence/permission to the proposed petroleum retail outlet without proper application of mind and solely relying upon the documents submitted by additional respondents 10 and 11. Though the Board had obtained permission, for at least 20 years, for the purpose of conducting vedikettu in Pattazhy Devi Temple, the authorities failed to hear the Board before giving permission for the petroleum retail outlet of additional respondents 10 and 11. 49. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17.11.2021, the learned Advocate Commissioner conducted inspection on 21.11.2021, who submitted a report dated 22.11.2021. As per the said report, there are two temples 55 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 situated in the Temple compound. The nearest Temple to the proposed petroleum retail outlet is ‘Vadakke Arapura Temple’ and the other Temple is situated 16 meters away from it, on its southern side in the same compound. The petroleum retail outlet is situated at the northern side of ‘Vadakke Arapura Temple’. Pattazhy-Enathu PWD road is passing through the northern and eastern sides of the petroleum retail outlet. There is a vacant land, lying in between the compound wall of the temple and the proposed petroleum retail outlet, on the northern side of the Temple, and the 1[st] petitioner claimed that this property belongs to the Devaswom. There is a tarred road leading to the Temple from Pattazhy-Enathu Road and the 1[st] petitioner claimed that this road also belongs to the Devaswom. 50. On inspection, the learned Advocate Commissioner found that, the nearest point to ‘Vadakke Arapura Temple’ is the filling point of the proposed petroleum retail outlet. The distance between the Temple and its northern compound wall is 10.50 meters. The shortest radial distance from the Temple till the filling point of the proposed petroleum retail outlet is 126.20 meters. In the report, the radial distance between the 56 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 filling point, dispensing unit and vent pipe of proposed petroleum retail outlet to the Temple is shown as below; |From|Radial distance| |---|---| |Filling Point|126.20| |Vent Pipe|131.80| |Dispensing Unit-1|133.50| |Dispensing Unit-2|139.80| The Advocate Commissioner could not measure the radial distance from the main entrance to the filling point, dispensing unit and vent pipe of proposed petroleum retail outlet directly, as there are multi-storied buildings in between. Therefore, the distance was measured separately. The distance between the main entrance of the Temple to the southern boundary of the proposed petroleum retail outlet is shown as 143.50 meters. In the report, the distance from the filling point, dispensing unit and vent pipe of proposed petroleum retail outlet unit to the main entrance of the Temple is shown as below; |From|To boundary of the Unit|Total Distance| |---|---|---| |FillingPoint|37.30|180.80| |Vent Pipe|43.40|186.90| |DispensingUnit-1|35.10|178.60| |DispensingUnit-2|27|170.50| 51. The Assistant Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board has filed a report dated 24.11.2021, wherein it is pointed out that petroleum retail outlet comes 57 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 under the purview of the Board in Green Category, as per Annexure R5(a) circular dated 17.03.2017. As per Annexure R5(b) Circular dated 09.08.2004 the minimum distance to be maintained by a Green Category small scale industry from the nearby residence is 3 meters. While so, pursuant to a direction issued by the National Green Tribunal (NCT), the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) issued Office Memorandum on 07.01.2020 prescribing that, in no case the distance between a new petroleum retail outlet from schools, hospitals and residential area designated as per local laws shall be less than 30 meters. In tune with the above office memorandum, the Board issued Annexure R5(c) circular dated 24.02.2020 reiterating that there shall be a minimum of 30 meters from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential area designated as per local laws. Subsequently the Board issued Annexure R5(d) circular dated 18.08.2020, modifying Annexure R5(c) to the extent that ‘residential area designated by local laws’ shall be considered as ‘residential building’. While so, the Central Pollution Control Board had issued Annexure R5(e) office memorandum dated 29.01.2021, whereby it was clarified that the revised siting criteria will not apply to those cases where prior clearance of Petroleum and Explosive Safety 58 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 Organisation (PESO)/initial approval has been obtained and subsequently construction has been started by the Oil Marketing Company (OMC) before 07.01.2020. Annexure R5(e) office memorandum was followed by Annexure R5(f) circular dated 21.04.2021 and Annexure R5(g) erratum dated 28.05.2021, as per which, for Integrated Consent to Establish applications received by the Board on or before 04.02.2021, circulars dated 24.02.2020 and 18.08.2020 are applicable. In such cases, if the applicant produces any of the license/clearance obtained prior to 24.02.2020, from the concerned Departments/Authorities, their applications shall be considered with distance criteria of 3 meters. For Integrated Consent to Establish applications received by the Board after 04.02.2021, circulars dated 04.02.2021 is applicable. In such cases, new siting criteria will be applicable except for those cases where PESO prior clearance/initial approval has been obtained and subsequently construction has been started by the OMC before 07.01.2020. At present Annexure R5(f) circular issued by the Board on 21.04.2021 is applicable for issuance of consent to establish/operate to a new retail petroleum outlet. Respondents 10 and 11 had submitted application for the Consent to Establish of the proposed 59 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 petroleum retail outlet under the name and style of M/s.Mathyottu Fuels, Pattazhy in Survey no. 419/17-2 of Pattazhy Village, Pathanapuram Taluk, Kollam District on 18.01.2021. As per Annexure R5(h) site plan submitted by the Industry Occupier along with the application, no residences, hospitals, schools were within 30m of the proposed vent pipe, filling point and dispensing unit locations. Also the Industry Occupier had submitted Annexure R5(i) affidavit dated 25.02.2021 stating that the nearby residence is located at 30.35m. The 9[th] respondent M/s.Nayara Energy Ltd had submitted a letter dated 08.03.2021 that application for PESO initial construction approval was already applied on 07.03.2021. The proposed site was inspected on 15.02.2021 by the Assistant Engineer, who is the Inspecting Officer. The construction of the petrol pump was not started at the time of inspection. Only the proposed site was cleared. The Industry Occupier was present at the time of inspection. As per the site plan and the information furnished by the Industry Occupier, the proposed location was found satisfying 30 meter minimum distance norms. Hence, based on the affidavit, site plan and other documents submitted by the Industry Occupier, Annexure R5(j) Consent to Establish was issued on 19.03.2021 60 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 with specific conditions. The Industry Occupier submitted PESO prior clearance dated 24.03.2021. Based on the direction of this Court, the Assistant Environmental Engineer, along with the Environmental Engineer, had inspected the site on 21.11.2021 in connection with the site visit of the Advocate Commissioner. During the said inspection it was noticed that the construction of fuel storage tanks and office buildings only had been commenced. The location of dispenser units, vent pipe and filling point were set out on the ground as in the approved site plan issued along with the Consent to Establish. During the said inspection, the writ petitioners brought to the notice of the Assistant Environmental Engineer that the nearest multi-storied building on the southern side is a commercialcum-residential building. On verification of the documents submitted by the Industry Occupier, it was noticed that the said building was specified only as shop in the site plan submitted to the Board by the Industry Occupier for obtaining the Consent to Establish. The actual occupancy type of the said building was brought to the attention of the Board by the writ petitioners based on the information they obtained under the Right to Information Act from the Local Body. The said building was found located within 30m from the dispenser/filling 61 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 point/vent pipe. As per the said documents produced by the writ petitioners, part of the building was given building number under residential occupancy type. In this building offices of certain companies were functioning as was evident from the name boards exhibited. As such, unless it is brought to the attention of the Inspecting Officers, it is not possible to identify its actual occupancy type. It was noticed during the said inspection that the minimum distance criteria with respect to residences was not satisfied from the current location of the dispensers/filling point/vent pipe. The Industry Occupier had furnished false information to the Board and had suppressed information from the Inspecting Officer for obtaining Consent to Establish. In the said circumstances Annexure R5(k) notice of intention to revoke the Consent to Establish was issued on 22.11.2021. 52. Now, Annexure R5(k) notice issued by the 5[th] respondent to revoke the Consent to Establish issued on 22.11.2021 is pending consideration before the Assistant Environmental Engineer, Kollam. It is for the competent officer in the office of the 5[th] respondent to finalise the said proceedings, with notice to respondents 9 to 11, the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the concerned Sub Group 62 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 Officer/Administrative Officer in charge of Pattazhy Devi Temple and also the Secretary of the 8[th] respondent Pattazhy Kshethra Upadesaka Samithi, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. 53. As already noticed hereinbefore, one Prabha Kumari filed W.P(C)No.17820 of 2021 before this Court seeking an order restraining the 9[th] respondent and additional respondents 10 to 11 from constructing the petroleum retail outlet in the property covered by Ext.R10(a), _inter alia_ , raising violations of Rule 144(5) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and for other consequential reliefs. In that writ petition, it was contended that, the establishment of a petroleum retail outlet will impede the rituals of Pattazhy Devi Temple and the safety of the devotees. The reliefs sought for in W.P(C)No.17820 of 2021 were to quash the no-objection certificate issued by the Additional District Magistrate for starting the petroleum retail outlet in the property in Re-Survey No.419/17-2 of Pattazhy Village; to quash the building permit issued by Pattazhy Grama Panchayat; to quash the consent granted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board; and to quash the layout approval and 63 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 usage of the plot granted by the District Town Planner, Kollam. By Ext.R10(d) judgment dated 05.10.2021, that writ petition was disposed of granting the petitioner therein liberty to file a representation before the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, narrating her grievances, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. On such representation being filed, the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam was directed to consider the same with notice to all affected parties, including the 9[th] respondent herein, within three weeks from the date of receipt of that representation. The petitioner therein was also given liberty to challenge the building permit before the appropriate authority, in accordance with law. 54. Pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure R10(d) judgment, the representation filed by Prabha Kumari was disposed of vide Ext.R10(c) order dated 29.10.2021. A reading of Ext.R10(c) order would show that the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, rejected the aforesaid representation on the ground that the 9[th] respondent has already been granted Consent to Establish by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and that, at present permission is not being granted for conducting kambam vazhipadu in Pattazhy 64 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 Devi Temple and that, the conduct of ponkala will not in any manner affect the establishment of a petroleum retail outlet in the property in question. The petitioners herein filed this writ petition before this Court on 03.11.2021. It is not discernible from the pleadings and materials on record as to whether a copy of Ext.R10(c) order dated 29.10.2021 was communicated to the petitioners herein before 03.11.2021. When one of the objections raised before the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam against the establishment of petroleum retail outlet in the property in question by respondents 9 to 11 was that it will adversely affect the performance of an important ritual of Pattazhy Devi Temple, namely, Pattazhy Kambam (fireworks), the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board and also the concerned Sub Group Officer/Administrative Officer in charge of Pattazhy Devi Temple ought to have be made a party to that proceedings. At any rate, in view of the specific direction contained in Ext.R10(d) judgment to consider the representation with notice to all affected parties, the Additional District Magistrate ought not to have passed orders on that representation without notice to the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is for the Travancore Devaswom Board or any person interested in Pattazhy Devi Temple to challenge Ext.R10(c) 65 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 proceedings of the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam dated 29.10.2021 before the appropriate forum. Therefore, the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides on the statutory violations are left open to be raised before the appropriate forum, before which a challenge against Ext.R10(c) proceedings is made. 55. As already noticed, in W.P.(C) No.17820 of 2021 filed by one Prabha Kumari respondents 9 to 11 herein are arrayed as respondents 10 to 12. The document marked as Ext.P12 in that writ petition is a copy of the resolution taken by Pattazhy Grama Panchayat, on 09.07.2021, whereby the District Magistrate was requested to reconsider the grand of no-objection certificate for the petroleum retail outlet in question, since it will adversely affect the conduct of 'Kambam' in Pattazhy Temple. The said resolution is marked as Ext.P9 in this writ petition. Another contention raised in that writ petition was regarding violation of the Guidelines for Access Permission for Fuel Station along State Highways and Major District Roads, issued by the Public Works Department, Kerala. During the pendency of W.P.(C) No.17820 of 2021, respondents 9 to 11 filed W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021, seeking police protection. That writ petition was filed on 06.09.2021, after submitting a 66 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 representation dated 30.08.2021 (Ext.P8) before the District Police Chief and others. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of that representation it is alleged that the 1[st] petitioner herein, who is arrayed as 5[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021, along with others are objecting the establishment of petroleum retail outlet in question, on the ground that there was some temple within a radius of 250 meters. An averment to that effect, even without mentioning the name of the temple, is made in paragraph 4 of that writ petition. From the files relating to Ext.R10(c) order dated 29.10.2021 of the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, which is made available for the perusal of this Court by the learned Senior Government Pleader, it is seen that the objections filed by the Temple Advisory Committee was before the Additional District Magistrate, which is one dated 10.08.2021. For reasons best known to respondents 9 to 11 herein, they have filed W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021 before this Court seeking police protection without the Travancore Devaswom Board in the party array, especially when the concern of the devotees pointed out before the statutory authorities was that the establishment of the proposed petroleum retail outlet by respondent 9 to 11 will adversely 67 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 affect the conduct the ritual 'Kambam' in Pattazhy Devi Temple. 56. Now, we shall deal with the contention raised by respondents 9 to 11 regarding the conduct of 1[st] petitioner in approaching this Court in this writ petition without disclosing the pendency of W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021 in which he is arrayed as the 5[th] respondent. In the said writ petition the 1[st] petitioner herein has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.09.2021, through another counsel. The explanation offered in the affidavit filed by the 1[st] petitioner, which is one dated 23.12.2021 is regarding a communication gap while instructing his counsel, Adv.Sri.R. Krishnaraj, through his junior counsel, Adv.Smt.A. Resmi. 57. On 12.01.2022, we have perused the miscellaneous papers in this writ petition, in view of the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner. Though the place of execution is not mentioned in the vakkalath, from the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition it is seen that the petitioner was personally present in the office of this counsel at Ernakulam, on 03.01.2021, the date on which this writ petition was moved before this Court. 68 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 58. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11 and also the explanation offered by the 1[st] petitioner in the affidavit dated 23.12.2021, we find that the conduct of the 1[st] petitioner in filing this writ petition before this Court, without disclosing the pendency of W.P.(C)No.18353 of 2021, amounts to suppression of material facts from the notice of this Court, which has to be dealt with appropriately. 59. In **Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]** the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are 69 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 60. In **Prestige Lights** the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the said judgment read thus: **“** 33. It is thus clear that though the appellant-Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the 70 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in **R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)]** , in the following words: "It has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts - facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it - _the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts_ , and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." (Emphasis supplied) 61. **Prestige Lights** the Apex Court held that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest 71 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the Writ Courts would become impossible. 62. In **Prestige Lights** the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 63. In **K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [(2008) 12 SCC 481]** , the Apex Court held that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He 72 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts". 64. In **K.D. Sharma** , the Apex Court held further that, if the primary object as highlighted in **R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [1917 (1) KB 486]** is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power 73 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the _rule nisi_ and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 65. Therefore, it is well settled that, a litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands and clean objects. The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no person would be allowed to abuse the judicial process, particularly, in public law remedy. In writ proceedings, the Court places implicit faith on the parties and their pleadings, as it does not indulge in any fact finding or roving enquiry of what has been asserted. Since Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouses equity jurisprudence, a litigant who has approached the Court with unclean hands, without disclosing full facts, is not entitled for any reliefs. 66. In **K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority [2022 (1) KLT 168]** the Apex Court has reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and 74 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. In order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. On the facts on the case on hand, since the appellants 75 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 have not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court, the Apex Court held that the appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. The appellants have not come to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the process of law. Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary reliefs. 67. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 1 to 7 have granted permission to respondents 9 to 11 to establish a petroleum retail outlet in a plot near Pattazhy Devi Temple, thereby effectively prohibiting an important ritual of that temple, namely, Pattazhy Kambam (fire works). In Exhibit R8(a) opinion dated 10.10.2021 of the Thantri, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom, Kottarakkara, the Thantri opined that fireworks (vedi vazhipadu) is an integral part of custom and rituals of the temple which can neither be avoided nor be shifted. In the counter affidavit filed by the 8[th] respondent Pattazhy Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithy, it is stated that, the apprehension of the devotees is that due to the proximity of highly inflammable and explosive substances kept in the proposed petroleum retail 76 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 outlet, restrictions may be imposed in offering the century old conventional pongala. The devotees are also afraid that the ritualistic fireworks may also have to be stopped in future. As already noticed hereinbefore, though respondents 9 to 11 were well aware that the concern of the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.17820 of 2021 and other devotees of minor deity of Pattazhy Devi Temple pointed out before the statutory authorities was that the establishment of the proposed petroleum retail outlet will adversely affect the conduct of the ritual 'Kambam' in Pattazhy Devi Temple, they have filed W.P. (C)No.18353 of 2021 before this Court seeking police protection without the Travancore Devaswom Board in the party array. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the 1[st] petitioner along with others have filed this writ petition before this Court as ‘persons interested’ in the affairs of Pattazhy Devi Temple, in order to protect the assets of the minor deity Pattazhy Devi and also the rituals in the Temple. Therefore, instead of dismissing this writ petition, which is one filed for the purpose of protecting the interest of the minor deity, for suppression of material facts on the part of the 1[st] petitioner, the said conduct can be dealt with appropriately by imposing costs on the 1[st] petitioner. 77 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 68. We also notice that in connection with Ext.R10(m) facebook post alleged to have been posted by the 1[st] petitioner and others, Crime No.18 of 2021 of the Cyber Police Station, Kollam, has already been registered for offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, as evidenced by Ext.R10(n) First Information Report. Since the Police has already registered a crime, we refrain ourselves from making any observations on the averments made in the affidavit filed by the additional 10[th] respondent in support of I.A.No.2 of 2021. It is for the Police to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. 69. As already noticed, in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the conduct of the 1[st] petitioner in suppressing material fact from the notice of this Court has to be dealt with appropriately by imposing costs. Accordingly, the 1[st] petitioner is imposed with a cost of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) payable to respondents 9 to 11, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each, which shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which respondents 9 to 11 will be entitled to recover the said amount by proceeding against the 1[st] petitioner. 78 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 70. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, subject to the imposition of costs on the 1[st] petitioner, by making it clear that any devotee of the minor deity of Pattazhy Devi Temple can move the jurisdictional District Judge with the grievance on the alleged encroachment of Devaswom property, which shall be dealt with appropriately by that authority, in terms of the directions contained in the order of the Apex Court in **Mrinalini Padhy [(2018) SCC OnLine 667]** , with notice to the alleged encroaches. Insofar as Annexure R5(k) notice issued by the 5[th] respondent to revoke the Consent to Establish granted on 22.11.2021 is concerned, it is for the competent officer in the office of the 5[th] respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Annexure R5(k), with notice to respondents 9 to 11, the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the concerned Sub Group Officer/Administrative Officer in charge of Pattazhy Devi Temple and also the Secretary of the 8[th] respondent Pattazhy Kshethra Upadesaka Samithi, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. 79 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 71. Before parting with this case, we deem it appropriate to make some observations on the description of the documents in the writ petition, index and also in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory applications. 72. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 35 of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971, all main proceedings shall contain an index sheet placed immediately below the covering sheet, setting forth the brief description of the contents therein with reference to the respective page numbers. The description of each and every document has to be provided in the statement of facts of the writ petition and in the affidavit filed in support of an interlocutory application or counter affidavit or reply affidavit, as the case may be, which shall contain a brief description of that document. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition Exts.P1 to P12 are marked as follows: “5. …............ Copies of the Settlement Register, BTR, Permit granted by the Petroleum Ministry, Permit granted by the District Town Planner, consent issued by the Pollution Control board, circular of the Pollution Control Board, No Objection Certificate issued by the Additional District Magistrate, consent letter given by the Fire and Rescue Department, representation given by the worshippers, resolution of the Panchayath, Licence issued by the Additional District Magistrate and Pattazhy 80 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 Devaswom Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act are - - - - - produced and marked as Exhibit.P 1, P 2, P 3, P 4, P 5, - - - - - - - ” P 6 , P 7, P 8 , P 9, P 10, P 11 and P 12. Registry shall ensure that proper description of the documents are shown in the statement of facts/affidavits filed in support of interlocutory applications, counter affidavit, reply affidavit and also on the index. **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** bkn/yd 81 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24300/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER .DTD. NIL.** **Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE BTR DTD. NIL. Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE PETROLEUM MINISTRY DTD. 24.03.2021. Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER DTD. 27.07.2021. Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD. 19.03.2021. Exhibit P5 (A) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. DTD. 18.08.2020. Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM DTD.16.07.2021. Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY THE FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT DTD. 03.02.2021. Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE WORSHIPPERS DTD. NIL. Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 07.09.2021. Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE ADM DTD. 31.03.2014. Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE PATTAZHY DEVASWOM LANDS (VESTING AND ENFRANCHISEMENT ACT 1961). DTD. NIL. Exhibit P12 ORDER OF THE APEX COURT IN WPC NO. 649/2018 DTD. 05.07.2018. Exhibit P13 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PATTAZHI GRAMA PRANCHAYATH DTD 17.11.2021 Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE** 82 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 **PATTAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DTD.28.10.2021** **Exhibit P15** **COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTAZHI UNDER RTI ACT DTD.25.11.2021** **Exhibit P16 COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PATTAZHI DTD.30.11.2021** **Exhibit P17 (Ext.P20): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SECRETARY TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM dtd.14.12.2021** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **Ext. R-10 (a) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 741 OF 2015 DT. 15.06.2015 OF THE SRO, PATTAZHY** **Ext. R-10 (b) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 05.10.2021 IN W.P. (C) NO. 17820 OF 2021** **Ext. R-10 (C) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCKLM/5420/2020/M7 DT. 29.10.2021 OF THE ADM, KOLLAM Ext. R-10 (d) : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPIES OF THE INTERIM series ORDERS DT. 08.09.2021, 23.09.2021, 30.09.2021, 12.10.2021 AND 22.10.2021 IN W.P. (C) NO. 18353 OF 2021 Exhibit R10(e) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTARIZED APPLICATION DATED 10.02.2021.** **Exhibit R10(f) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTARIZED CONSENT DATED 12.02.2021.** **Exhibit R10(g) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTARIZED ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS DATED 18.02.2021. Exhibit R10(h) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 26.02.2021. Exhibit R10(i) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 14.05.2020.** **Exhibit R10(j) TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT NO.A2-3081/2020 DATED 09.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,** 83 W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 ## **PATTAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** **Exhibit R10(k) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.216/2005 DATED 27.01.2005 OF THE SRO, PATTAZHY.** - **Exhibit R10(l) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF LAND DEMARCATION REGISTER ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE., PATTAZHY.** - **Exhibit R10(m) TRUE PINTOUTS OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF THE FACEBOOK POSTS TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY CERTIFICATE.** **Exhibit R10(n) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.18/2021 OF THE CYBER CIRME POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL.** - **Exhibit R10(o) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO CHANGE OF NAME.** - **Exhibit R10(p) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GRANT OF APPROVAL OF MARKETING RIGHTS BY THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS DATED 27.05.2002.** - **Exhibit R10 (q) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPOY OF THE FMB SKETCH OF THE PROPERTIES ISSUED FROM THE PATTAZHY VILLAGE OFFICE** - **Exhibit R10 (r) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE DEVASWOM LANDS IN PATTAZHY VILLAGE IN RESPECT OF WHICH BASIC TAX IS PAID** - **Exhibit R10(s) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 22.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS NOS 10 AND 11** - **Exhibit R10 (t) TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH ALONG WITH THE STATUTORY CERTIFICATE THEROF** 84 ## W.P.(C)No.24300 of 2021 **EXHIBIT R10 (u) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.1058/21 DATED 07.12.2021 ISSUED TO THE ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NOS.10 AND 11 FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PATTAZHY.** **EXHIBIT R10 (v) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD. 07.05.2021 ISSUED TO THE ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NOS.10 AND 11 FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PATTAZHY.**