Surendran S/o Balakrishnan v. District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Kollam District; District Collector, Kollam; State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary; Addl. Respondents 4 to 6 (Director of Mining & Geology, Director of Panchayat, Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938 ## WP(C).No. 17080 of 2016 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SURENDRAN S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KURAYIL VEEDU (SHRUTHY BHAVANAM), KAITHAKKODU MURI, PAVITHRESWARAM, KOTTARAKARA TALUK. ## BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM-691001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM, PIN-691501. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ## **ADDL.R4 TO R6 IMPLEADED** Addl. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. Addl. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033. Addl. 6. THE SECRETARY, PAVITHRESHWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPINPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691518. (ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 AS PER ORDER DATED 11.5.2016) R1-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A.C. VIDYA R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX IN WP(C).NO. 17080 OF 2016 (H)** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - ------------------------------------ - P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 7-4-2015. - P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 10347/2016. - P3 BUILDING PERMIT DT. 7.4.15 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. - P4 POSSESSION AND LOCATION CERTIFICATE No.1080/16 DT.2.5.16 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAVITHRESHWARAM. - P5 COPY OF BUILDING PLAN PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER. ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - --------------------------------------- EXT.R6(A): COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.31.5.16 FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE POLICE STATION. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE dsn ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J** **-------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.17080 of 2016** **-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 14[th] DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession of 3.03 Ares of land in Sy.No.362/17-4-2 of Pavithreshwaram Village in Kottarakkara Taluk has filed this Writ Petition mainly seeking for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to issue Mineral Transit Pass in Form O(A) under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015, for transporting the extracted earth from his property, considering the building permit already obtained by him. 2. Going by the averments in the Writ Petition, the petitioner is having an extent of 3.03 Ares of property, which is a plot fit for construction of residential building after extracting ordinary earth from the said property, which lies at an elevation of few meters above the road level. The specific averment in Para.1 of the Writ Petition is that the petitioner obtained a building permit dated 7.4.2015 from Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat for construction of a residential building. A true copy of the building W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -2- permit bearing No.A3-2304/15 dated 7.4.2015 is produced along with the Writ Petition as Ext.P1. After obtaining Ext.P1 building permit, the petitioner submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam, who forwarded the said application to the District Geologist, Kollam, the 1[st] respondent herein, to consider his request for issuance of Mineral Transit Pass in Form O(A). However, the said application was neither considered nor rejected by the 1[st] respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking various reliefs. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner relied on Ext.P2 judgment of this Court dated 17.3.2016 in W.P.(C) No.10347/2016, a decision rendered by a learned Judge of this Court on similar set of facts. 3. On 10.5.2016, when this Writ Petition came up for admission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought for disposal of the same in terms of Ext.P2 judgment. Therefore, after hearing the learned Government Pleader, the Writ Petition was disposed of, by directing the 1[st] respondent to issue sufficient Mineral Transit Pass in Form O(A) to the petitioner without W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -3- restricting the number of vehicles to be deployed by him and subject to the other conditions as contained in Ext.P2 judgment. 4. While reading the draft judgment of the writ Petitions disposed of on 10.5.2016, it was noticed that the building permit produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.17080 of 2016 and that produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.17078 of 2016 (filed by another resident of Pavithreswaram Grama Panchayat seeking identical reliefs in respect of 15.20 Ares of property in Sy.No.366/28 of Pavithreswaram Village) bear the same number and date, i.e., 'No.A3-2304/15 dated 7.4.2015'. In both the building permits, the total plinth area of the proposed building is shown as 217.11 sq.meters (Ground Floor - 126.16 sq.meter + First Floor - 90.95 sq.meter). 5. Prima facie, it appeared that Ext.P1 building permit produced along with both the Writ Petitions are photocopy of the very same document, except the changes in the name of the permit holder and survey number of the property. In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioners have not chosen to produce the building plan/site plan, which forms an integral part of the W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -4- building permit. In view of serious doubts as to the genuineness of Ext.P1 building permits, the Registry was directed to list the Writ Petitions as 'to be spoken to' on 11.5.2016, with notice to the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions and also to the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader, this Court by order dated 11.5.2016 directed the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions to produce, along with an interlocutory application for accepting additional documents, the original of Ext.P1 building permit along with the building plan and site plan. The Director of Mining and Geology, who was _suo motu_ impleaded as Addl. 4[th] respondent was directed to conduct an inspection of the properties referred to in Ext.P1 building permit in both the Writ Petitions, through the 1[st] respondent or any other competent officer, and to submit a detailed report as to the nature of the land, and state as to whether there are instances of the permit holders not constructing the building after extracting and removing ordinary earth from their property on the strength of Mineral Transit W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -5- Passes issued in Form O(A). The Secretary of Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat, who was _suo motu_ impleaded as Addl. 6[th] respondent was directed to produce before the Registrar General of this Court, the original files relating to building permits bearing No.A3-2304/15 dated 7.4.2015 produced as Ext.P1 along with both the Writ Petitions. 7. Though the petitioner produced certain documents in purported compliance of the order of this Court dated 11.5.2016 as Exts.P3 to P5 along with I.A.No.6066 of 2016, a verified petition filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was found that instead of producing the original building permit, a colour photocopy of the same has been produced as Ext.P3. Further, the said application was not supported by an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner as mandated by Rule 154 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. The additional 6[th] respondent, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has also produced before the Registrar General of this Court, the original files relating to building permit No.A3-2304/15 dated 7.4.2015 and also the original Building Permit Application Register maintained by the W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -6- Panchayat for the relevant period. As evident from the said documents, on 27.3.2015, Smt.Chellamma, the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.17078/2016 submitted an application before the Panchayat, based on which she was issued with a building permit bearing No.A3-2304/2015 dated 7.4.2015. However, no such permit has been issued to the petitioner in this Writ Petition nor has he made any application for building permit. 8. On 25.5.2016, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the original of Ext.P1 building permit and the building plan/site plan attached thereto are in the office of the 1[st] respondent. Therefore, by order dated 25.5.2016, the petitioner was directed to produce before this Court the original of the said documents along with an interlocutory application for accepting additional documents, under Rule 154 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, supported by an affidavit. In the said order, it was made clear that, if the said documents are in the office of the 1[st] respondent, the said fact shall also be stated in the said affidavit. It was also ordered that, if the original of Ext.P1 building permit is with the 1[st] respondent, the said respondent W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -7- shall keep the said document under safe custody. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the additional 6[th] respondent, the Secretary of the Panchayat, stating that the petitioner never approached the Panchayat by way of any application for building permit and therefore no files pertaining to building permit issued to the petitioner exists. The 6[th] respondent has also stated that building permit No.A3-2304/2015 dated 7.4.2015 produced as Ext.P1 along with the Writ Petition is not one issued to the petitioner, but one issued to Smt.Chellamma who is the petitioner in the other Writ Petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.17078/2016. The application of the said Chellamma was also entered in the Building Permit Application Register, the original of which has already been produced before the Registrar General of this Court as Sl.Nos.178 and 22. 10. Pursuant to the order dated 25.5.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner dated 28.5.2016, along with I.A.No.9014/2016 in I.A.No.6067/2016. In the said affidavit, the petitioner has stated that since his house is in a very dilapidated condition, he decided W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -8- to construct a new house. Accordingly, he engaged one Mr. Premlal, Rohini House, Kareepra P.O., Kareepra, Kollam District for obtaining building permit from Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat, in the year 2015. The said Premlal had handed over the building permit and other connected documents to the petitioner, who bonafide believed that he had done the work perfectly and the document is original. Since the property of the petitioner situate above road level, he entered into a contract with one Saji Varghese for removal of ordinary earth from the property. Then the petitioner submitted all the necessary documents, along with the originals of building permit issued by the Grama Panchayat, location sketch issued by the Village Officer and building plan, before the 1[st] respondent for permit, through the said Saji Varghese. In the said affidavit, the petitioner has also stated that he is not able to produce the originals of the building permit, possession certificate and location sketch before this Court since the same has already been produced before the 1[st] respondent District Geologist. 11. By order dated 2.6.2016, the learned Government W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -9- Pleader was directed to ascertain whether the original of Ext.P1 building permit and the building plan/site plan are available in the Office of the 1[st] respondent and if the said documents are in the Office of the 1[st] respondent, the learned Government Pleader was directed to produce photocopy of the said documents and also the application submitted by the petitioner, before this Court along with a memo. 12. Pursuant to the said order, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission for removal of earth from his property was produced along with a memo filed by the learned Government Pleader daed 23.6.2016, which contains an application submitted by the petitioner, addressed to the District Geologist, Kollam, which has been assigned with Sl.No.1481 dated 6.6.2015. A colour photocopy of the building permit No. A3-2304/15 dated 7.4.2015 is also enclosed along with the said application. 13. The 1[st] respondent has also filed a counter affidavit dated 23.6.2016 stating that the petitioner filed an application, which is numbered as 1481 dated 6.6.2015, seeking removal of W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -10- ordinary earth from his property in Sy.No.351/17-4-2. The said application was received in the Office on 7.5.2015 with file No.1481/2015 dated 6.6.2015 of the Mining and Geology Department, District Office, Kollam containing 8 pages, which has already been produced before this Court along with a separate memo. The said file contains many other documents including building permit bearing signature and seal of the Secretary, Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat in original. In the said counter affidavit, the 1[st] respondent has also denied the averments in the Writ Petition that the application along with Ext.P1 and connected records were routed through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam. According to the 1[st] respondent, such application was directly submitted to his Office. The application was under scrutiny and the inspection was not at all done as the applicant did not approach the 1[st] respondent's Office thereafter. 14. Since it was not discernible from the affidavit dated 23.6.2016 filed by the 1[st] respondent whether the original of Ext.P1 building permit is available in the Office of the 1[st] respondent, the learned Government Pleader sought for time to W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -11- file a proper affidavit in terms of the order dated 2.6.2016. 15. On a specific query from this Court as to whether the original of Ext.P1 building permit is available in the office of the 1[st] respondent, the said respondent has stated in Para.3 of his counter affidavit that the file contains many other documents including building permit carrying the signature and seal of the Secretary of the Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat in original. 16. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also for addl. respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for Pavithreswaram Grama Panchayat, representing the addl. 6[th] respondent. 17. The entitlement of a land owner, who intends to construct a building in the property, to seek transit pass in Form O(A) as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 has been dealt with in detail, while dismissing the connected Writ Petition filed by Smt.Kunjalavi Chellamma with cost. Paras.19, 20 and 23 of the said judgment in **Kunjalavi Chellamma v. District Geologist (2015 (3) KHC 111)** read W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -12- thus: “19. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 a quarrying permit in Form N is mandatory for extraction of ordinary earth used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways or buildings. However, an exception is carved out in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, which provides that, no quarrying permit in Form N is required for extraction of ordinary earth in connection with the construction of residential buildings including flats or commercial buildings having a plinth area of 300 square metres, if the owner of the land obtained a prior valid permit for construction of such building from the Local Self Government authorities concerned. 20. From a plain reading of Rule 14 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 it is evident that, the provisions under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 have application only if the extraction of ordinary earth from the land is in connection with the construction of residential buildings including flats or commercial buildings having a plinth area of 300 square metres, for which the owner of the land has already obtained a valid permit from the Local Self Government authority concerned. Therefore, construction of the building in terms of the building permit obtained from such Local Self Government authority concerned, immediately W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -13- following such extraction and removal of earth from the property in question, is a mandatory requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14. If no construction is commenced immediately following such extraction and removal of earth, an inference can be drawn that it was an attempt made by the land owner to extract ordinary earth from the property in question, without obtaining a quarrying permit in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the KMMC Rules, 2015; in which event such extraction and removal of ordinary earth from the property can be treated as one in contravention of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the KMMC Rules, 2015 and such land owner can be proceeded against under the penal provisions of Rule 108 of the said Rules and also that under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015. In that view of the matter, the provisions under Rule 17 of the Kerala Panchayat Buildings Rules, 2011 or that under Rule 15A of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, which provide for validity, extension and renewal of the periods of building permits, would not stand in the way of the authorised officers invoking the penal provisions under the KMMC Rules, 2015 against such land owners. xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx 23. Going by the 1[st] proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -14- of the KMMC Rules, 2015 in cases where transportation of ordinary earth is required, the owner shall pay royalty for the quantity to be transported and shall obtain mineral transit passes under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 from the competent authority. The 2[nd] proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 mandates that, the competent authority shall not issue mineral transit passes for removal of ordinary earth exceeding the quantity needed to be extracted, as ascertained by it through a site inspection. ... ...” 18. From the pleadings and material on record and also from the documents made available to this Court by the 1[st] respondent Geologist and the 6[th] respondent, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, it is evident that the application made by the petitioner before the 1[st] respondent seeking transit pass in Form O(A) was made on the strength of a document which is not in existence. The fact that the petitioner was never issued with a building permit by Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat is not in dispute. The register and other documents produced by the 6[th] respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat would also show that the petitioner never approached the Panchayat for building W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -15- permit. Further, the documents produced along with the memo filed by the learned Government Pleader dated 23.6.2016 would show that the petitioner made an application before the 1[st] respondent on 6.6.2015 producing a colour photocopy of building permit No.A3-2304/2015 dated 7.4.2015 issued by the Secretary of the Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat, which is one issued in favour of Smt.Chellamma, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17078/2016. 19. In **Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (1995 (3) SCC 757)** , the Apex Court held that filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a Court of law. The relevant portion of paragraph 38 of the said verdict reads as follows : W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -16- “ **38.** Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise or tend to candalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any Court : (2) prejudice or interfere or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) Interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceeding amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceeding not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any Court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence commits criminal contempt of the Court and renders himself liable to be W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -17- dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of fase statements and fabricating false evident in a Court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clean and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995 (1) SCC 421 : 1994 AIR SCW 4994) the respondents produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice. Brother Hansaria, J. speaking for the Bench observed: (at p.4995, of AIR) “the stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court's atmosphere may give vitaility to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court's W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -18- environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceeding; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.” ## 20. In **Muthu Karuppan V. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi (2011** **(6) SCC 496)** the Apex Court expressed the view that filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. In ## **Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs. BOC India Ltd. (2016 (1) SCALE** **264)** , the Apex Court observed that though the observation in **Muthu Karuppan's case** (supra) was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. 21. On 24.1.2017, when this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the District Geologist, Kollam has W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -19- already submitted a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam East Police Station, alleging that the building permit produced along with the application made by the petitioner for transit pass is a forged one. After hearing both the sides, this Court passed an order on 24.1.2017, which reads thus: “ The learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the District Geologist, Kollam has already submitted a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam East Police Station that the building permit produced by the petitioner along with his application for transit pass is a forged one. 2. The original of the application submitted by the petitioner before the District Geologist, Kollam along with the supporting documents including the building permit in question are produced before this Court along with a memo filed by the learned Government Pleader dated 23.6.2016. Since the said documents are necessary for a proper investigation of the complaint filed by the District Geologist, the Registry shall return the documents produced along with the aforesaid memo dated 23.6.2016 to the learned Senior Government Pleader, after keeping an attested copy of those documents in the Judges Papers. W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -20- 3. The additional 6[th] respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit producing therewith as Ext.R6(a), a copy of the complaint filed by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat before the Sub Inspector of Police, Ezhukone Police Station regarding the building permit alleged to have been forged by the petitioner. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions.” 22. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Government Pleader that, based on the complaint made by the District Geologist, Kollam, Crime No.320/2017 of Kollam East Police Station has already been registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and the investigation is going on. It is for the Police to conduct a detailed investigation as to the involvement of any other persons in the alleged forgery. 23. Regarding the complaint dated 31.5.2016 made by the 6[th] respondent, Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.R6(a) along with the additional counter affidavit filed by the said respondent dated W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -21- 21.1.2017, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that no such complaint is received by the Police. 24. The document in question is a building permit alleged to have been issued by the 6[th] respondent, the Secretary of the Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat. As per the Building Permit Application Register maintained by the Panchayat, the petitioner never approached the Panchayat for building permit and building permit No.A3-2304/2015 dated 7.4.2015 issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was one issued in favour of Smt.Chellamma, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.17078/2016. Therefore, it is for the 6[th] respondent to make a fresh complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Ezhukone Police Station, Kollam within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If any such complaint is received, the Police shall take further action in the matter in accordance with law. 25. Though this is a fit case for initiating criminal contempt against the petitioner, considering the fact that the Police has already registered a crime against the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -22- which investigation is going on, I deem it appropriate to dismiss this Writ Petition imposing a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner. 26. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed imposing a cost of **₹25,000/-** (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) on the petitioner, which shall be paid to the Kerala Legal Services Authority, an authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to provide free legal service to the weaker sections of the society. Such payment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner fails to pay the said amount within the time limit specified as above, it would be open to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority to recover the said amount by initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner and her assets, in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.107/2011/RD dated 26.2.2011, by which the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 were made applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any person or class of persons to the said Authority. 27. The Registry shall return the documents produced W.P.(C)No.17080/16 -23- along with the memo dated 23.6.2016, to the learned Senior Government Pleader, after keeping attested copies of those documents in the Judges papers, in terms of the order dated 24.1.2017 in this Writ Petition. Similarly, the original Building Permit Application Register and the application produced by the 6[th] respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat shall be returned to the learned Standing Counsel for the Pavithreshwaram Grama Panchayat, after keeping in the Judges papers of this case attested copy of page No.22 of that register and the application submitted by the Smt.Chellamma before the Panchayat. Registry shall communicate a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, Kochi. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** dsn True copy P.S. To Judge