Thomas K. J. and Jamal K.A. Kanaparambil v. State of Kerala and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.6060 of 2019** |**PETITIONER**<br>**:**|**PETITIONER**<br>**:**|**PETITIONER**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---|---| ||||**THOMAS.K.J.**| ||||**S/O.JOSEPH KUMBUKKEL,**| ||||**EZHUMUTTAM CHALASSERY,**| ||||**THODUPUZHA,**| ||||**IDUKKI (DIST), PIN-685584.**| ||||**BY ADVS.**| ||||**SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN**| ||||**SMT.P.S.SETHULEKSHMY**| ||||**SRI.C.V.SASI**| ||||**SRI.JOY P.JOSE**| ||||**SRI.K.JAYAMOHANAN PILLAI**| ||||**SRI.K.N.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|||| |**1**|||**STATE OF KERALA,**| ||||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY**| ||||**(MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT),**| ||||**GOVT. SECRETARIAT,**| ||||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|||**GEOLOGIST,**| ||||**DISTRICT OFFICER, MINING AND GEOLOGY**| ||||**DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, IDUKKI AT MINI**| ||||**CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685584.**| |**3**|||**THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||||**INDUSTRIES DEPT AND FINAL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,**| ||||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| ||||**SRI K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 6060/19 ## **-:2:-** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner along with one Jamal are stated to be owners of 20.23 ares, 7.60 ares and 7.07 ares of property comprised in Sy. Nos.290/2, Re-Sy. Nos.289/8 and 290/2 of Karikkode Village, Meenmutty Kara, Block No.34 of Thodupuzha Taluk. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari and to quash Ext.P14 demand notice dated 5.12.2016 issued by the second respondent Geologist and Ext.P17 appellate order dated 10.1.2019 of the third respondent, who is the Second Appellate Authority and to order stay of recovery of the penalty in Ext.P10 order dated 17.10.2016 of the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha. 2. On 8.3.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to file counter affidavit. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit. WPC 6060/19 ## **-:3:-** 4. On 6.6.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions with reference to the averments in paragraph 6 of writ petition. Paragraph 6 of the writ petition reads thus: “6. It is respectfully submitted that on receiving Ext.P4 notice a petition was filed before the 2[nd] respondent Geologist, District Office Mining and Geology Idukki at Thodupuzha under Right to Information Act 2005 and from the information supplied dt.05-05-2016 it can be ascertained that permits were issued to the following persons for quarrying from the Govt. land and the adjacent lands as detailed below - (i) T.K.Sasi, Thottumkarayil, Asarikkunnu, Chilav P.O., Sy. No.293/7 - (ii) Job John, Thaliparambil (H), Ezhumuttam P.O. Sy No.290/2 (iii) P.K.Ibrahim, Paliyath (H), Edavetty P.O. Sy.289 - (iv) Riyas K. Seethi Kanaparambil, Ezhumuttam, Sy.291/2 (v) Jamal K.A. Kanaparambil, Ezhumuttam, Sy.290/2 Copy of the letter dt.05-05-2016 issued by 2[nd] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P5.” 5. On 17.6.2019, when this petition came for further consideration, it was submitted by the learned Senior WPC 6060/19 ## **-:4:-** Government Pleader that a counter affidavit is being filed. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the additional counter affidavit filed by the second respondent on 17.6.2019 read thus: “4. It is humbly submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition is devoid of merits. When the notices were issued to the petitioner, his main contention was regarding the non-consideration of the extraction done by his predecessors in the averred area. The then Senior Geologist examined the matter in detail and found that there are previous extraction in the averred area and as per the office records available at the District office, a quantity of 880M[3] was permitted to extract from the averred area previously (289/2-740M3, 289/4-100M3, 289/6-40M3). Hence a deduction of 880M3 was made to the previously estimated 10,656M3 and hence a revised demand for 9776M3 of granite (building stone) was made as Rs.17,59,680/- (Royalty – 5,86,560/-, price – 11,73,120/-) and the same was issued to the petitioner vide notice No.DOI/178/M/2013 Dated 5.12.2016. It is evident from the demand notice (Exhibit P14) that the assessment of the extent of illicit extraction was done only for Sy. No.289/2, 289/4, 289/6 and 289/7 of the Karikkode village. 5. It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner has put adjoining survey numbers also in his statement in Paragraph 6. The illicit extraction was detected, as done by the petitioner, in Sy.No.289/2, 289/4, 289/6 and WPC 6060/19 ## **-:5:-** 289/7 of the Karikkode village. Hence the deduction of the quantity, if any done by his predecessors, is applicable to these survey numbers only. The following quantities were allowed to remove from the relevant survey numbers as per the quarrying permits issued to different persons: |**Village**|**Survey**<br>**No.**|**Name of the**<br>**quarrying**<br>**permit holder**|**No.of**<br>**quarrying**<br>**permits**<br>**issued**|**Total**<br>**quantity of**<br>**extraction**<br>**permitted (in**<br>**Metric**<br>**Tonnes)**| |---|---|---|---|---| |Karikkode|289/2|Shri.Job John<br>Thaliparambi<br>Ezhumuttom P.O.,<br>Chalasserry|8|1200| |||Shri.P.K.Ibrahim<br>Paliyath (H)<br>Edavetty|4|650| |Karikkode|289/4|Shri.Pareeth<br>Khader<br>Kulathingal (H)<br>Muthalakkodam|5|250| |Karikkode|289/6|Shri.K.A.Ashraf<br>Kallumpurath (H)<br>Sasthampara<br>Edavetty|1|100| |Karikkode|289/7|Nil|Nil|Nil| |||Total||2200| Hence, it is humbly submitted that the previous extractions in Sy.No.289/2, 289/4, 289/6 and 289/7 of the Karikkode village are briefed as : |**Village**|**Survey No.**|**Quantity permitted**<br>**(As per permit register)**|**Quantity permitted**<br>**(As per permit register)**| |---|---|---|---| |||**In Metric Tonnes**|**In Cubic Meters**| |Karikkode|289/2|1850|740| |Karikkode|289/4|250|100| |Karikkode|289/6|100|40| |Karikkode|289/7|Nil|Nil| |Total||2200|880| The petitioner has put may irrelevant survey numbers in Paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The only related survey WPC 6060/19 ## **-:6:-** number is 289 for which the deduction was allowed before issuing notice No.DOI/178/M/2013 Dated 5.12.2016. It is irrelevant to put Survey Nos.293/7, 290/2 and 291/2 along with this case as the petitioner was not alleged to conduct illicit extraction in these survey numbers. **Moreover, the team of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau has detected two more similar cases of Shri.Riyas K.Seethi, Kanaparambil and Shri.Jamal K.A., Kanaparambil in Karikkode Village and the Writ Petitions related with these cases are pending before this Hon'be Court as W.P. (C) Nos.4892/2019 and 4917/2019** . Hence it is must humbly submitted that no offender is allowed to evade as the natural resources are finite and the unauthorised and unscientific extraction is intimidation to the environment as well as public exchequer. 6. It is most humbly submitted that on 8.4.2016, the petition submitted an application, under Right to Information Act, by which he has sought information regarding the previous issuance of quarrying permits in Sy. No.289/2, 289/4, 289/6 and 289/7 of the Karikkode village. When the information was given, the relevant pages of the quarrying permit register were also provided to the petitioner. The petitioner has produced that pages of the quarrying permit registers as Exhibit P6, P6(a) and P6(b) of this writ petition. **It may be kindly noted that only the Sl.No.50 of Exhibit P6, Sl.No.962 of Exhibit P6(a) and Sl. No.1203 of Exhibit P6(b) are** WPC 6060/19 ## **-:7:-** **pertaining to the present situation. All other permits are issued to some other survey numbers lying in different other villages of Idukki district** . It is humbly submitted that the petitioner is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court by producing certain pages of permit register obtained by him under Right to Information Act. 7. It is most respectfully submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding Exhibit P9 demand notice of the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha with respect to the penalty imposed to Sri.Ajay, S/o Naryanan, Illikkal, Karikode are not correct. **The extraction done by petitioner and the extraction done by Shri.Ajay for which the Land Conservancy case had been initiated are related to two different locations lying 60 metres apart** . The land lying in Survey No.289/4 of Karkikkode village is Government Land having more than 1 hectare extent. The contention of the petitioner that he should get the benefit of all the extractions previously done in any part of the Survey No.289/4 is baseless. Moreover, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has never raised this contention in any of his explanations filed before the Geologist against the notices issued to him or in his appeals before the Appellate authorities. And if he had raised, he would have been given the reply that the assessment for the present illicit extraction is not at all related with the illicit extraction done by Shri.Ajay for which the Land Conservancy case was registered WPC 6060/19 ## **-:8:-** during the year 2000. 8. It is more respectfully submitted that the averment of the petitioner that the 2[nd] respondent, without conducting any independent enquiry, imposed penalty relying solely on the letter dated 4.2.2016 of the Tahsildar was not correct. On the request of the 2[nd] respondent, the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha gave intimation regarding the joint inspection scheduled to be conducted on 26.9.2015, vide letter No.F6-18416/15 Dated 15.9.2015. A true copy of the said communication is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(a). Soon after receiving the said communication, the petitioner was also given intimation by the 2[nd] respondent regarding the joint inspection vide letter No. DOI/1333/M/15 Dated 19.9.2015. A true copy of the said communication issued to the petitioner by the 2[nd] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(b).” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P17 order dated 10.1.2019 of the third respondent, who is the Second Appellate Authority, whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P15 first appellate order of the Deputy WPC 6060/19 ## **-:9:-** Secretary to Government stands rejected, thereby confirming the demand made in Ext.P14 demand notice dated 5.12.2016 of the 2[nd] respondent. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of Ext.P17 order read thus: “5. അപപ്പീൽ ഹർജജിയുമമായജി ബന്ധപപടട്ട് 11.9.2018 നട്ട് അപപ്പീൽ ഹർജജികമാരപന അപപ്പീൽ അധജികമാരജിയമായ വവ്യവസമായ വകുപട്ട് പസക്രടറജി നനരജിൽ നകൾക് യുണമായജി. എനമാൽ ഹജിയറജിറിംഗട്ട് നവളയജിൽ അപപ്പീൽ വജിഷയവുമമായജി ബന്ധപപടട്ട് ഒരു നകമാടതജി നകസട്ട് നജിലവജിലുപണനറിം, ബഹ. ആയതജിൽ ഒരു നസ്റ്റേ ഉത്തരവട്ട് ഹഹനകമാടതജി പുറപപടുവജിചജിട്ടുപണനറിം ഹർജജികമാരൻ നബമാധജിപജിചജിരുന. എനമാൽ ടജിയമാൻ ആയതജിപന്റെ പകർപ്പുകപളമാനറിം ഹമാജരമാകജിയജിരുനജില. ആയതജിനമാൽ ടജി നരഖകളുമമായജി ഹമാജരമായജി വസ് കൾ നബമാധജിപജിക്കുനതജിനട്ട് 3.10.2018 നട്ട് മപറമാരു ഹജിയറജിറിംഗട്ട് കൂടജി അപപ്പീൽ അധജികമാരജി നടത്തുകയുണമായജി. 6. പ്രസ് ഹജിയറജിറിംഗജിൽ ഹർജജികമാരൻ, ടജിയമാൻ ബഹ. നകമാടതജി മുമമാപക സമർപജിച WP(C) 40588/2016 നമർ ഹർജജിയുപട പകർപ്പുറിം ആയതജിനന്മേൽ ബഹ. ഹഹനകമാടതജി 06.06.2017 ൽ പുറപപടുവജിച ഒരു ഇടകമാല ഉത്തരവജിന്റെ പകർപ്പുറിം ലഭവ്യമമാകജിയജിരുന. എനമാൽ പ്രസ് റജിടട്ട് ഹർജജി സമർപജിചജിരജിക്കുനതട്ട് പതമാടുപുഴ തഹസപ്പീൽദമാരുപട 17.10.2016 പല എഫട്ട് 6-18416/15 നമർ നടപടജി ക്രമത്തജിപനതജിപരയമായജിരുന. ടജി നടപടജിക്രമറിം നസ്റ്റേ പചെയട്ട്യ്യ്തുപകമാണ്ടുള 06.06.2017 ൽ ബഹ. ഇടകമാല ഉത്തരവമാണട്ട് നകമാടതജി പുറപപടുവജിചജിരുനതട്ട്. 7. സർകമാർ പുറനമമാകജിൽ നജിനറിം അനധജിക്രജിത ഖനനത്തജിനുള പജിഴയമാണട്ട് പതമാടുപുഴ തഹസപ്പീൽദമാർ 17.10.2016 പല നടപടജിപ്രകമാരറിം അപപ്പീൽ ഹർജജികമാരനനമാടട്ട് ഒടുകമാൻ ആവശവ്യപപടജിരുനതട്ട്. എനമാൽ അപപ്പീൽ ഹർജജികമാരൻ സർകമാർ പുറനമമാകട്ട് ഭൂമജിയജിൽ നടത്തജിയ അനധജിക്രജിത കരജിങ്കലട്ട് ഖനനത്തജിനട്ട് നറമായൽറജിയുറിം പജിഴയുറിം ഈടമാക്കുനതജിനമായജി പതമാടുപുഴ തഹസപ്പീൽദമാർ നജിർനദ്ദേശജിചതനുസരജിചമാണട്ട് ജജിനയമാളജജിസ്റ്റേട്ട് യ്യ്തുടർനടപടജികൾ . സസപ്പീകരജിചതട്ട് തഹസപ്പീൽദമാരുപട നടപടജിക്രമത്തജിപനതജിപരയമാണട്ട്WP(C) 40588/2016 ഫയൽ പചെയജിരജിക്കുനതട്ട് എനതജിനമാൽ തപന WPC 6060/19 ## **-:10:-** അനധജിക്രജിത കരജിങ്കൽ ഖനനത്തജിനട്ട് നറമായൽറജി ഒടുക്കുനതജിനമായജി ജജിനയമാളജജിസ്റ്റേട്ട് പുറപപടുവജിച ഡജിമമാന്റെട്ട് നനമാടപ്പീസജിപനതജിപര പക. . . എറിം എറിം സജി ചെടങ്ങൾ പ്രകമാരറിം ഫയൽ പചെയ അപപ്പീൽ പപറപ്പീഷൻ അപപ്പീൽ അധജികമാരജി പരജിഗണജിക്കുനതജിനട്ട് നമൽ ഹർജജിയജിനന്മേലുള നകമാടതജിവജിധജി തടസ്സമമാകജിപലനട്ട് നജിയനമമാപനദശറിം ലഭജിചജിട്ടുണട്ട്. 8. . ഈ വജിഷയറിം അപപ്പീൽ അധജികമാരജി വജിശദമമായജി പരജിനശമാധജിച പരമാതജികമാസ്പദമമായ ഭൂമജിയജിൽ നജിനറിം ജജിനയമാളജജിസ്റ്റേട്ട് ഡജിമമാന്റെട്ട് പചെയ അളവജിലുള കരജിങ്കലട്ട് അനധജിക്രജിതമമായജി ഖനനറിം പചെയട്ട് നപ്പീകജിയതട്ട് എന തമാനല പതളജിയജിക്കുനതജിനട്ട് വസ് മാപരമമായ മറട്ട് പതളജിവുകപളമാനറിം തപന അപപ്പീൽ ഹർജജികമാരനട്ട് ഹമാജരമാക്കുവമാൻ . കഴജിഞജിട്ടുണമായജിരുനജില അപപ്പീൽ ഹർജജികമാരനട്ട് തപന്റെ വമാദങ്ങൾ നവ്യമായപ്പീകരജിക്കുനതജിനട്ട് തക വസ്തുനജിഷ്ഠമമായ പതളജിവുകപളമാനറിം തപന ഹമാജരമാക്കുവമാൻ സമാധജികമാത്ത സമാഹചെരവ്യത്തജിൽ ഒനമാറിം അപപ്പീൽ അധജികമാരജിയുപട പരമാമർശറിം (2) പ്രകമാരമുള ഉത്തരവജിൽ തക തപന ഇടപപടുനതജിനു കമാരണങ്ങപളമാനറിം കപണത്തമാൻ .പജ, കഴജിഞജിടജില എനതജിനമാൽ ശജി.നതമാമസട്ട് പക കുമറിംങ്കൽ വപ്പീടട്ട്, ഇടുകജി സമർപജിച രണമാറിം അപപ്പീൽ പപറപ്പീഷൻ നജിരസജിചട്ട് ഉത്തരവമാകുന.” 8. As discernible from Ext.P17 order of the Second Appellate Authority, the said authority has not applied its mind to none of the contentions raised by the petitioner, while confirming the order of the First Appellate Authority, thereby upholding the demand made in Ext.P14 demand notice. 9. Along with the additional counter affidavit, the second respondent has furnished the details regarding the quarrying permit issued to different persons and the quantity of extraction permitted. WPC 6060/19 ## **-:11:-** 10. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union** , (1971 (1) All. E.R. 1148) Lord Denning, M.R. observed that, the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In **Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree** , (1974 ICR 120) it was observed that, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 11. Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to above, the Apex Court in **Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others v. P. C. Kakkar** (2003) 4 SCC 364) held that, reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of WPC 6060/19 ## **-:12:-** natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 12. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down in **Krishna Swami v. Union of India** (1992) 4 SCC 605) that, undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. The object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial **-:13:-** WPC 6060/19 authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions making. It would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. At the same time, it is not the requirement that, the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. What is necessary is that, the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasijudicial authority. 14. In **B. A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport Authority** (2015) 4 SCC 515), the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments on the subject has reiterated that, the rule of reason is anti-thesis to arbitrariness in action and is a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. If a statutory or public authority/functionary does not record the reasons, its decision would be rendered arbitrary, unfair, unjust WPC 6060/19 ## **-:14:-** and violating Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of such authority/functionary to give reasons and to pass a speaking order that excludes arbitrariness in action. Referring to the facts of that case, the Apex Court noticed that, there is no consideration of the objections except mentioning the arguments of the rival parties and that objections both factual and legal have not been considered much less reasons assigned to overrule them. 15. In **Malu M. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others** (ILR 2015(3) Ker. 869) this Court held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purposes, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions making. It would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. 16. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that a WPC 6060/19 ## **-:15:-** reconsideration of the matter at the hands of the third respondent, who is the Second Appellate Authority, is required since Ext.P17 order is one issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P17 order dated 10.1.2019 of the third respondent, for the aforesaid reason, and by directing the said authority to reconsider the matter, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. It will be open to the petitioner to file written submission before the third respondent, which shall also be considered by the said respondent. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. **==> picture [44 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** vps WPC 6060/19 **-:16:-** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 30.5.2015**| |---|---| ||**FILED BEFORE SECRETARY, EDAVETTY**| ||**PANCHAYATH.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED**| ||**2.6.2015 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF TALUK SURVEYOR**| ||**THODUPUZHA DATED 28.1.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF SHOWCAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY**| ||**TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA DATED 31.3.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.5.2016**| ||**ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF**| ||**INFORMATION OF REGISTER MAINTAINED AT**| ||**GEOLOGY OFFICE.**| |**EXHIBIT P6(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF**| ||**INFORMATION OF REGISTER MAINTAINED AT**| ||**GEOLOGY OFFICE.**| |**EXHIBIT P6(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF**| ||**INFORMATION OF REGISTER MAINTAINED AT**| ||**GEOLOGY OFFICE.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF**| ||**SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF TALUK OFFICE.**| **-:17:-** WPC 6060/19 |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF NOC DATED 3.12.2014 ISSUED**| |---|---| ||**BY TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.G3-14039/00 LC**| ||**II/00 DATED 30.4.2018 ISSUED BY**| ||**TAHSILDAR THODUPUZHA TO SRI.AJAY.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.416/15 DATED**| ||**17.10.16**<br>**ISSUED**<br>**BY**<br>**TAHSILDAR,**| ||**THODUPUZHA.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH**| ||**COURT OF KERALA IN WPC.NO.40588/2016**| ||**DATED 7.11.18.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 11.8.2016**| ||**ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 20.8.2016**| ||**FILED BY THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED**| ||**5.12.2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF 1ST APPELLATE ORDER**| ||**NO.474/2018 DATED 23.4.2018.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.11.2018.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN 2ND APPEAL**| ||**NO.34/2019 DATED 10.1.2019 ISSUED BY**| ||**3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.378/18-**| ||**19/DOI/178/M/13 DATED 11.2.2019 ISSUED**| ||**BY 2ND RESPONDENT.**| **-:18:-** WPC 6060/19 ## **RESPONDENT'S/S'EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND SURVEY MAP DATED 4.2.2016 OF THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F6-18416/15 DTD 15.9.2015 EXT.R2(B) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DOI/1333/M/15 DATED 19.9.2015** ## **/True Copy/** **vps PS to Judge**