THITTAYIL BALAN NAIR v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SREE THRICHERUMANNA alias KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941** **WP(C).No.26687 OF 2019(I)** ## **PETITIONER:** **THITTAYIL BALAN NAIR AGED 76 YEARS S/O.THITTAYIL NARAYANA KURUP, THITTAYIL HOUSE, MANATHANA PO - 670674, THALASSERRY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNA KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**BOARD OF TRUSTEES**| |---|---| ||**SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PO KOTTIYOOR,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT-670651.**| |**2**|**K.SANKARAN NAIR,**| ||**HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS**| ||**KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, PO KOTTIYOOR,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT-670651.**| |**3**|**K.C.VELAYUDHAN NAIR,**| ||**HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS**| ||**KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, PO KOTTIYOOR,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT-670651.**| |**4**|**AKKAL DAMODARAN NAIR,**| ||**HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS**| ||**KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, PO KOTTIYOOR,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT-670651.**| W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 2 - **5 NANDYARVALLI VALIYA SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRIPPAD, THANTHRI, TRUSTEE, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, PO KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670651.** - **6 THE RAJA OF KOTTAYAM,PAZHASSI KOVILAKAM, NONHEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, PO KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670651.** - **7 THE PRESIDENT, SRI.KOTTIYOOR PERUMAL SEVA SANGAM, NONHEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, PO KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670651.** - **8 THE GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.KOTTIYOOR PERUMAL SEVA SANGAM, NONHEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, PO KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670651.** - **9 THE TAHASILDAR,THALASSERRY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, NON-HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, PO KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670651.** - **10 THE COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006.** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN** **R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN** - **R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR** **R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI** **R5 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN** **R5 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS** - **R5 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM** **R6-8 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN** **R6-8 BY ADV. SRI.ABEL ANTONY** **R10 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ravikumar, J.** The question whether in the absence of a specific provision for a 'No Confidence Motion' to unseat a person from the Office of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Sree Tricherumanna @ Kottiyoor Devaswom, a 'No Confidence Motion' can be moved in that regard, is posed for consideration in this writ petition. Nonetheless, we may hasten to state that in view of factual position, the arguments advanced and the materials on record, consideration of the said question may not become necessary for the disposal of this writ petition. The necessary facts may be compendiously stated thus:- 2. The petitioner is one of the hereditary trustees, in fact, the Chairman, of the Board of Trustees of Sree Thricherumanna @ Kottiyoor Devaswom. He was elected as its Chairman on 12.5.2018. Going by Clause 6(a) of the existing Scheme which was settled by this Court as per judgment dated 6.4.1994 in M.F.A.No.74 of 1988, the term of an elected Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the said Devaswom shall be three years from the date of election. In this context, it is also relevant to note that going by the rules framed under Rule 100(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Rules (in short W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 4 'the Rules') more specifically, Rule 17 therein, a Chairman elected under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 13 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (in short 'the Act') shall hold the office for a period of two years from the election unless he ceases to be a trustee in the meanwhile. Since the issue to be resolved is not with respect to the tenure of the elected Chairman we do not propose to consider such incongruity and conflict between the scheme and the rules in that regard, in this case. During the continuance of the petitioner as Chairman of the Board of Trustees respondents 2 to 4 who are the other hereditary trustees of the temple moved Ext.P3 before the 10[th] respondent viz., the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board. Essentially, as per Ext.P3, they sought for a direction to the petitioner herein to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees so as to enable them to move a 'No Confidence Motion' against him. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner issued Ext.P4 notice dated 4.9.2019 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees for the purpose of discussing 'No Confidence Motion'. On its receipt, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 dated 16.9.2019. It is stated therein that from Ext.P4 notice it is evident that certain serious allegations were levelled against him by three hereditary trustees and the _Thanthri_ of the temple. At the same time, in view of non-receipt W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 5 of copy of the complaint that led to the issuance of Ext.P4 he is not in a position to respond to Ext.P4 in an appropriate manner, it is stated therein. Further he has stated therein thus:- “ആയത�ന�ൽ തന� അവർ ഉ�യ�ച ആര��പണങൾ എന�ണ� എ�� അറ�യ�ര�ണത�ണ�. എന **�** � ആയത�ന� ര��പ� അയച ത��ട�ല. ന�ലവ�ലള ടസ�ൽ 9 അ'ഗങള�ൽ 4 രപർ മ�തമ�ണ� ആര��പണ' ഉ�യ�ചത� എ�� രന�ട,സ� പ���' ��ണ�നമ� ന�ലയ�ൽ ര/ഷ�ച ഞ�ൻ ഒഴ�ന�യള 4 രപർ�� മമ�ന� എന **�** � പറയ�ൻ അവസ�' നൽ�ണനമന' അത�ന�യ� ആര��പണ' അടങ�യ ര��പ� എന **�** � ലഭ�ര�ണതമ�ണ�. ആയത� ലഭ���ത സ�ഹച�?ത�ൽ രയ�ഗ' വ�ള�ച രചർ��ൻ കടതൽ സമയ' ലഭ�ര�ണത' അല�ത പക' ആയത� Principle of natural justice ന� എത���ണ� എ�� രC�ധ�പ�ചന��ളന. ആയത�ന�ൽ ഈ അരപക പ��ഗണ�ച �ലനയ�യ� ��രടണത�ണ�.” On receipt of Ext.P5 from the petitioner the Commissioner issued Ext.P6 dated 20.9.2019. It would reveal that as requested by the petitioner copy of Ext.P4 was forwarded to him and at the same time, he was required to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees with 'No Confidence Motion' as the main agenda within three days from the date of receipt of Ext.P6. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed the captioned writ petition on 4.10.2019 with the following prayers:- - “1. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash Exhibit P6 order. AND Pass any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” On 16.10.2019 the writ petition was admitted. On completion of W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 6 service of notice and on completion of pleadings, the matter has now come up before us for final hearing. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Adv.Sri.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Adv.Sri.Muraleedharan.R.K., the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, the Board of Trustees, Adv.Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8, the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.9 and Adv.Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board. 4. As noticed hereinbefore, a scanning of the pleadings of the petitioner would reveal that he mounts challenge against Ext.P6 on the ground that the 10[th] respondent, the Commissioner lacks total jurisdiction to issue Ext.P6 compelling him to convene a meeting to discuss a No Confidence Motion in the absence of a specific provision for No Confidence Motion to oust the Chairman of the Board of Trustees in Ext.P1 scheme, in the Act and in the Rules. To buttress the said contention the learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Mohan Lal Tripathi** v. **District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly and Others (AIR 1993 SC 2042)** , **Jyoti Basu and Others** v. **Debi Ghosal and Others (AIR 1982 SC 983)** , a Full Bench W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 7 decision of this Court in **Lakshmanan** v. **Velliankeri (AIR 2002 Ker. 325 (FB))** and a decision of High Court of Delhi in **Mukund L.Abhyankar** v. **Chief Executive Officer, National Federation of - Urban Co op. Bank & Credit Societies Ltd. and Ors. (AIR 2017 Delhi 125)** . In the light of the said decisions, the learned counsel submitted that in the absence of specific provision enabling a No Confidence Motion to oust the Chairman of the Board of Trustees in the Act, the Rules and the Scheme, Ext.P6 is liable to be quashed. In that context, it is to be noted that the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent as also respondents 6 to 8 endorsed the contentions of the petitioner. 5. Per contra _,_ the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, the learned counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board would contend that Ext.P6 is perfectly legal and in the circumstances obtained in this case as also in the light of the legal decisions obtained, Ext.P6 cannot be said to be an order issued without any jurisdiction. As observed earlier, the question is whether in view of the factual position, at the instance of the petitioner, the scope of interference with Ext.P6 on the ground of specific provision in the Act, the Rules and the Scheme, the Chairman of a Board of Trustees could W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 8 be ousted through a No Confidence Motion need be considered? This question assumes relevance for more than one reason. On going through the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4 and the documents produced therewithal, we found that virtually, the order impugned was implemented by the petitioner himself. Immediately, on receipt of Ext.P4 notice dated 04.09.2019, the petitioner gave Ext.P5 reply dated 16.09.2019 wherein he took up a contention that as he did not have copies of the allegations raised by the other hereditary trustees, he requires more time for convening of a meeting. Ext.P6 was given by the Commissioner on receipt of Ext.P5 from the petitioner. Evidently, pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P6, without any demur, the petitioner himself issued Ext.R3(i) for the purpose of convening a meeting with the following as the agenda:- “ശ, ന��ട�യർ രJവസK' നചയർമ�ന എത�ന� ട� രJവസKത�നല ടസ�മ���യ ശ, കളങര�ത /ങ�ൻ ന�യർ മതൽരപർ മലC�ർ രJവസK' രC�ർഡ �മ,ഷണർ മൻപ�ന� ഉ�യ�ച ആര��പണങൾ സ'Cന�ച.” A perusal of Ext.R3(i) itself would reveal that he issued Ext.R3(i) in compliance with Ext.P6 letter, on 01.10.2019. This is evident from the reference in Ext.R3(i). The counter affidavit would further reveal that pursuant to Ext.R3(i) notice, a meeting was convened for the purpose specifically mentioned therein and at the same time, the petitioner had W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 9 not participated in the said meeting. In his absence, a Trustee was chosen by the other Trustees to preside over the meeting and the question rather, the subject in the agenda was discussed and ultimately, voting was also conducted. The motion was passed unanimously and the proceedings of the said meeting were forwarded to the Commissioner as can be seen from Ext.R3(k). That apart, it would reveal that in the said meeting, based on the passing of the resolution, a new Chairman was elected unanimously. Thus, it is obvious that the factum of compliance with Ext.P6 notice by the petitioner by issuing Ext.R3(i) was specifically stated in the counter affidavit. The pleadings in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 would reveal the fact that the petitioner has concealed the crucial fact that virtually, he had complied with Ext.P6 by issuing Ext.R3(i) notice dated 01.10.2019 and in pursuance thereof, a meeting was convened as directed in Ext.P6, on 11.10.2019. The same would also reveal that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the agenda specifically given thereunder. Above all, the facts thus obtained would reveal that the writ petition was moved only after issuance of Ext.R3(i) notice dated 01.10.2019. In view of what is brought out, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks further time to get clarification from the petitioner. W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 10 6. According to the request of the learned counsel we have adjourned the matter, virtually abruptly stopping the dictation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition. In paragraph 25 of the reply affidavit it is stated thus:- “Much has been argued about Exhibit R3(i) the notice dated 1.10.2019 issued to convene a meeting on 11.10.2019. It is true that the existence of the said notice was not brought to the notice of my counsel when I signed the writ petition on 02.10.2019. It may kindly be considered that the situation pertaining as on that date, 1.10.2019, was that, I was already faced with Exhibit P3 complaint, Exhibit P4 order of the Commissioner dated 4.09.2019 nearly 4 weeks before, Exhibit P6 order, again by the Commissioner, dated 20.09.2019, which in extremely stern terms directed me to convene a meeting.” Thus, it is evident that for the first time he revealed the issuance and receipt of the notice only in the reply affidavit, that too, when the said matter was brought to the notice of this Court by respondents 2 to 4 through their counter affidavit. The afore-extracted text from the reply affidavit would reveal that even after stating that he did receive a notice to convene a meeting on 11.10.2019 he did not state any reason as to why that fact was not disclosed in the writ petition. Thus, evidently, the issuance of notice convening the meeting on 11.10.2019 W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 11 was not brought to the notice of his counsel. A careful scanning of the pleadings in the reply affidavit would reveal that even after stating as aforesaid in paragraph 25 he did not assign any reason as to why he had not divulged the said fact viz., the crucial factor to the learned counsel even while signing the memorandum of writ petition. In the affidavit accompanying the writ petition he had stated that the facts mentioned in the writ petition are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. When he himself issued Ext.R3(i) convening a meeting on 11.10.2019 he cannot be heard to raise any excuse for not disclosing the same in the writ petition which was filed subsequent to the issuance of Ext.R3(i). At the risk of repetition we will refer to Ext.R3(i), wherein the agenda for the meeting was shown as hereunder:- “ശ, ന��ട�യർ രJവസK' നചയർമ�ന� എത�ന� ട� രJവസKത�നല ടസ�മ���യ ശ, കളങര�ത� /ങ�ൻ ന�യർ മതൽരപർ മലC�ർ രJവസK' രC�ർഡ� �മ,ഷണർ മൻപ�ന� ഉ�യ�ച ആര��പണങൾ സ'Cന�ച�.” Add to it, what is stated by the petitioner in the reply affidavit is that the existence of Ext.R3(i) notice dated 01.10.2019 was not brought to the notice of the counsel. It is curious to note that even after admitting the fact that such a notice to convene a meeting on 11.10.2019 was issued by him he did not bring it to the notice of his counsel even while W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 12 signing the writ petition on 02.10.2019. That apart, he did not state anywhere in the reply statement as to whether the meeting was actually conducted pursuant to Ext.R3(i) and if so, what is the outcome of the No Confidence Motion moved in the said meeting. In the said circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. Since the petitioner being a person approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking prayer to quash Ext.P6 order, which is a notice calling upon him to convene a meeting to move a No Confidence Motion in fairness he should have specifically stated the fact that by the time he approached this Court he had already complied with such a direction contained in Ext.P6. The fact revealed by the respondents would go to show that a meeting was conducted on 11.10.2019 and the 'No Confidence Motion' was moved successfully. Even in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner these crucial facts were not at all mentioned and it is to be noted that he has not even given any reason as to why he has concealed those crucial factors. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that if a person approaches this Court with unclean hands in the sense suppressing the crucial aspects which were in his knowledge the said person is not entitled to the relief sought for. As noticed hereinbefore, practically the one and the only prayer of the W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 13 petitioner is quashment of Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 is virtually a notice calling upon him to convene a meeting on 11.10.2019 so as to enable consideration of a 'No Confidence Motion'. When that be the circumstances, the fact that by the time he moved this Court he had actually issued notice for convening the meeting should have been mentioned in the writ petition. The fact he was unseated is evident from Ext.R3(k), which is the minutes of the said meeting. That apart, a statement was filed on behalf of the 10[th] respondent wherewithal Annexure-R10(1) was produced. Annexure-R10(1) is dated 3.10.2019, which reads thus:- “രമൽ നമർ �ത�നല ത�ല�? പ���' ശ, ന��ട�യർ രJവസK' ടസ�മ�രനട ഒര രയ�ഗ' 11/10/2019)o ത�യത� ��വ�നല 11 മണ **�** � ശ, ന��ട�യർ രJവസK' ഓഫ,സ�ൽ വ�ള�ച രചർത **�** �കന. തടർചയ�യ�ടള ഒഴ�വ� J�വസങൾ ���ണമ�ണ� രയ�ഗ ത�യത� ത�മസ�ച� ന�ശയ�കവ�ൻ ” ���ണമ�യത�. Thus, it is obvious that the very fact that a meeting was ordered to be convened by him on 11.10.2019 based on Ext.P6 notice dated 20.9.2019 is very much evident from Annexure-R10(1). It is evident that the petitioner cannot feign ignorance about convening of the meeting on 11.10.2019 and in fact, he himself reported the said fact to the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board as per Annexure-R10(1) letter dated 3.10.2019. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the suppression on the part of the petitioner is nothing but W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 14 purposefully made with a view to mislead this Court. In this context, it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ## **Dhananjay Sharma** v. **State of Haryana** reported in **(1995) 3 SCC** **757** . The Apex Court held thus:- ”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 anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law.” We have no hesitation to hold that the suppression of a crucial fact is also nothing but such an attempt. In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to consider the other contentions raised in the writ petition. The upshot of the discussion is that the writ petition has to fail and consequently, it is dismissed. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** Sd/- **N.NAGARESH Judge** TKS/aks/dlk W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 15 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26687/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.4.1994 IN M.F.A.74/1988 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DATED 12.05.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.08.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.09.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.09.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2001 KHC 1400 (** _**EQUIVALENT TO 2001 (9) SCC 68**_ **).** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.10.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMISSIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.10.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9.10.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.10.2019 ISSUED BY THGE PETITIONER TO ALL TRUSTEES.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11.10.2019 OF THE DEVASWOM STAFF.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 10.10.2019 OF RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 10.10.2019 OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT.** W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 16 ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT-R3(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER** **EXHIBIT-R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DATED 22.052019** **EXHIBIT-R3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY PETITIONER'S SON DATED 22.052019** **EXHIBIT-R3(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AND TWO OTHER TRUSTEE BOARD MEMBERS.** - **EXHIBIT-R3(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY MANJITH KRISHNAN BEFORE THE 10TH RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER.** **EXHIBIT-R3(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.8.2019.** **EXHIBIT-R3(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.07.2019 EXHIBIT-R3(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TRUSTEE BOARD CONVENED ON 27.07.2019. EXHIBIT-R3(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.10.2019 EXHIBIT-R3(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WP(C)NO.21779/2011 DATED 18.11.2011.** - **EXHIBIT-R3(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 12.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE-R10(1) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.10.2019.** **ANNEXURE-R10(2) THE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED 1.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.** W.P.(C)Nos.26687 of 2019 17 **ANNEXURE-R10(3) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.** TKS