Tomy Thomas v. Thalappalam Grama Panchayat and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **TOMY THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS,** **S/O. THOMAS, PULICKAL HOUSE, KALATHUKADAVU P.O, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM – 686 579.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE THALAPPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE THALAPPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PLASSANAL P.O, KOTTAYAM – 686 579. 2 THE SECRETARY, THALAPPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE THALAPPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PLASSANAL P.O, KOTTAYAM – 686 579.** - ***ADDL. THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT R3 AUTHORITY(SEIAA, KERALA) REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.** ***ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA.1/2020 DATED 09-03-2020.** **R1 & R2 – SRI. GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW R3 – SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN, SC SRI. P.B. SAHASRANAMAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **2** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.5897 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th ] day of May, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The petitioner was operating a quarry for mining building stones in his property comprised in Survey No. 284/pt of Erattupetta Village in Meenachil Taluk of Kottayam District from 2004 onwards upon obtaining all statutory licenses including permit under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 from the respondents as well as the D & O License obtained from the respondents under the provisions of Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. From the year 2012, the second respondent failed to renew the D & O License of the petitioner for operating his quarry for want of Environmental Clearance stipulated under EIA Notification, 2006. Accordingly petitioner **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **3** obtained Exhibit P1 Environmental Clearance and produced the same before the respondents. But they neither renewed the existing D & O License for the subsequent years nor had granted a fresh D & O License. Therefore the petitioner was forced to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15505 of 2016. Later the Mining and Geology Department based on Exhibit P1 granted Exhibit P2 quarrying lease under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The Panchayat appeared in the above writ petition and contested that they are not bound to go by Exhibit P1 while considering the application for trade license. The Learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench and later to the Full Bench which culminated in the decision of this Court reported in 2019 (3) KLT 987 (Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala). Based on the Full Bench decision this Court considered W.P.(C) No. 15505 of 2016 and passed Exhibit P5 judgment directing the petitioner to apply afresh to the trade license by virtue of the amendment brought out to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Accordingly the petitioner submitted Exhibit P6 application and the second respondent under the **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **4** guise of Section 233(2A) started issuing Exhibits P7, P14, P20 and 22 notices stating that more and more documents are required for consideration of Exhibit P6 application. When the petitioner satisfied the demands made in Exhibit P7, he issued Exhibit P14 and when those directions are satisfied he issued Exhibit P20 and later Exhibit P22 only to harass the petitioner and to delay consideration of Exhibit P6. This is highly illegal, arbitrary and malafide and the issuance of notices under the guise of Section 233(2A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by the second respondent seems to be an ongoing process as in the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by Exhibits P7, P14, P20 and 22 notices as well as non-consideration of Exhibit P6 application in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 232 and 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the petitioner begs to prefer this writ petition. It is in the light of the above factual averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:- “I) Call for the records relating to Exhibits P7, P14, P20 and 22 notices issued by the second respondent and issue a writ of certiorari and quash the same; **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **5** II) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider Exhibit P6 application and grant the same in the light of the documents produced by the petitioner vide Exhibits P8 to P13 and Exhibits P15 to P19 along with Exhibit P21 in accordance with Section 232 and 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; and III) Issue such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri. Joby Jose Kondody, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Georgekutty Mathew learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Sri. M.P. Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and Sri. P. B. Sahasranaman, learned Counsel who was permitted to make submissions for the intervenor party. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his unit has duly secured all the statutory permit, licence, clearance etc. from the competent Statutory Authorities concerned who are primarily concerned with the activity of quarrying, except the establishment and trade licences to be issued by respondents 1 and 2 (Thalappalam Grama Panchayat). 4. It is pointed out that a series of documents have been **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **6** produced before this Court. Ext.P1 is the Environmental Clearance newly issued by the 3[rd] respondent Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Ext.P2 is the quarrying lease issued by the District Geologist concerned and Ext.P3 is the licence issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives and Ext.P4 is the integrated consent to operate the unit and its renewal issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. It appears that after the issuance of Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance, the 3[rd] respondent Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority has issued a stop memo directing the petitioner to stop the functioning of his unit in view of certain complaints raised by certain objectors. 5. A series of notices has been consistently issued by respondents 1 and 2 as can be seen from Exts.P7, P14, P20 and P22 directing the petitioner at various points of time to clarify and remedy certain aspects which accordingly to them are defects noted in the application submitted by the petitioner for the grant of the said establishment and trade licences. It will be relevant to note the averments in paragraphs 13 to 19 of the WP(C) which **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **7** deals with those issues. After hearing all the parties concerned it appears that a series of notices like Exts.P7, P14, P20 and P22 has been issued by the 2[nd] respondent on rather hypotechnical grounds which has resulted in the delay in consideration of Ext.P6 application which is an application for the joint consideration of the grant of establishment licence and the trade licence as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules framed thereunder. 6. The matter in issue is fully covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in _**Tomy Thomas V. State of Kerala and others**_ (as per judgment dated 30.08.2019 in WP(C) No.15505 of 2016 and connected cases reported in 2019 (3) KLT 987 (F.B)). As a matter of fact the successful petitioner in the Full Bench decision in _**Tomy Thomas’s case**_ (supra) is none other than the present writ petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that after the authoritative pronouncement by the Full Bench in the above said _**Tomy Thomas’s case**_ (supra), a series of cases has been disposed of by this Court following the findings **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **8** and directions made by the Full Bench in the said judgment. The petitioner's matter in relation to the case considered by the Full Bench was remitted to the learned single Judge and Ext.P5 is the judgment rendered in the petitioner’s case wherein it was ordered that the application of the petitioner should be duly considered and acted upon by the respondent Panchayat Authorities strictly in terms of the legal principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in _**Tommy Thomas’s case**_ (supra). It would be profitable to refer the paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 0f the Full Bench judgment in _**Tommy Thomas’s case**_ (supra) which reads thus follows:- “22. Under the amended provisions of sub-section (3) of S.233 of the Act, the Secretary or the officer authorised by him should conduct an enquiry and submit report to the Village Panchayat as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop, workplace or other installation of machinery or manufacturing plant, for which the permission is applied for, is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility to cause nuisance or pollution. The Village Panchayat on consideration of the application and the report of the Secretary and of such other authorities as specified in sub-section (4) may as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within thirty days grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose. Sub-clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) contained in the unamended provisions were omitted through the amendment. Subclause (b) of sub-section (3) which enabled the Village **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **9** Panchayat to refuse the permission for reason to be recorded, was omitted from the statute book. It gives a clear indication that the power of the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission has been taken away by the legislature. 23. Consequent to the above noted amendments to S.233 of the Act, the Licensing Rules were also amended. From the chart given as above it is evident that Rule 12 had undergone drastic changes. Under the unamended provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 the Village Panchayats were obliged to consider the application for permission within 45 days in case of obtaining no objection certificates from other establishments and within 30 days in other cases either to grant permission applied for, absolutely or subject to conditions or to refuse permission if it is of the opinion that such construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood or that it is likely to cause nuisance. The power vested on the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission as mentioned above contained under sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12, was amended drastically. Under the amended sub-clause (b) it is provided that, if the Village Panchayat is of the opinion that the construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to cause nuisance, the Secretary shall as soon as may be after receipt of the application obtain an expert opinion of the department concerned with regard to determination of nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person incharge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned and such report shall be furnished to the Village Panchayat as soon as possible not later than 30 days of reporting such nuisance. Further it is provided that, on furnishing of such report of the concerned department, the Village Panchayat shall issue permission subject to such conditions as may be required for abatement of the nuisance if any, as recommended in the expert opinion of the concerned department. From the amendment incorporated under Rule 12(3) it is clear and evident that the power vested on the Village Panchayat to **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **10** refuse the permission based on the opinion that the construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood or that itself likely to cause nuisance, has been taken away by the legislature. Through the amendment it is clarified that if the Village Panchayat is of the opinion that the construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to cause nuisance, then the Secretary shall obtain an expert opinion of the department concerned and shall place such report for consideration of the Village Panchayat. There also the Village Panchayat is only authorised to issue permission subject to such conditions as may be required for abatement of the nuisance, as recommended in the expert opinion of the concerned department. Therefore it is clear and evident that the power vested on the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission has been taken away by virtue of the amendments. 24. As mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the amendments specified above were introduced through the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation(No.2) (Act 14/2018). The object of introducing such an Act, as specified therein, is intended to give effect to certain proposals of the Government of Kerala to avoid delay in granting various licences/permissions, approvals and clearances required under-various enactments. Therefore the intention of the legislature to bring such drastic amendment is clear and explicit. Hence it is to be observed that, from the date of enforcement of the amendments from 20th October, 2017, it cannot be said that Village Panchayats have got primacy of power to take an independent decision to reject the applications for permission/licence under provisions of the Act and the Licensing Rules, for construction or for establishment of any factory workshop or work place. On the other hand, the Grama Panchayats (Village Panchayats) are obliged to grant permissions in cases where the authorities mentioned under S.233 of the Act had issued such permissions or consents or noobjection certificates. Even if the panchayat is of the **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **11** opinion that the construction or establishment of the factory, workshop or workplace is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to cause nuisance, then also the panchayat can only obtain expert opinion from the department concerned and it is obliged to issue permission for such construction or establishment subject to such conditions as may be required for abatement of the nuisance, if any, as may be recommended in the expert opinion of the concerned department.” 7. In those paragraphs more particularly in paragraph 24, the Full Bench has categorically held that after the amendment to the abovesaid Rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Act, the discretion of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to refuse such a licence is almost nil and such discretion has been taken away and if all the competent Statutory Authorities as mentioned above has granted their necessary permissions, clearances, licences etc. then the Panchayat Committee or the Panchayat Secretary as the case may be, is bound to grant the licence. Reference may be made to paragraph 24 of the Full Bench judgment wherein it has been held that the Grama Panchayats are obliged to grant permissions in cases where the authorities mentioned under Section 233 of the Act had issued such permissions or consents or No Objection Certificates. **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **12** Moreover if any complaints come to the notice of the Panchayat, a specific statutory procedure has been devised by the legislature in Section 233 for dealing with such complaints. Therefore the competent Authority of the Panchayat is bound to grant such licences, but at the same time they will be at liberty to invoke the special procedure contemplated under Section 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to deal with such complaints. 8. That apart the objectors concerned can also place their complaints and objections before the competent Statutory Regulatory Bodies concerned if the licencee has violated the terms and conditions of such clearances and licences and such statutory competent Authority may after the due process of inspection etc. and after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned may render the decision on such issues and in such case the Panchayat can even insist that they should also be heard by the competent Authority concerned. 9. Petitioner’s counsel would submit fairly that he would insist for consideration of the establishment and trade licences by the Panchayat Committee and the Panchayat Secretary, as the **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** ## **13** case may be, only if the 3[rd] respondent Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority vacates the stop memo issued in relation to the matters in Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance. 10. To the specific query as to the action proposed by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, Sri. Georgekutty Mathew, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would fairly submit on the basis of specific instructions that the Panchayat Authorities that is respondents 1 and 2 are bound and obliged in law to strictly comply with the legal principles and directives laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in _**Tommy Thomas’s case**_ (supra) and that the discretion of the said Authorities to reject the said licences is almost taken away if all the other statutory Authorities has granted permission, on account of the amended provision. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would vehemently contend that the amended provisions taking away the discretion of the local self Governmental body is unreasonable and arbitrary, as the local body has to be sensitive to the complaints of the people of the locality. It is for the **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **14** respondent Panchayat Authorities to seek redressel of their grievances, if any, as against the amended Rules, in the manner known to law. But so long as the amended Rules remain in the statute book and so long as the Rules are not interdicted and so long as the above dictum laid down by the Full Bench is not interfered with by a larger Bench or by the Apex Court, a statutory Authority like the respondent Panchayat has to strictly discharge their functions within the parameters of those Rules and in strict consonance with those legal principles. No local body can be permitted to act against those Rules and well settled legal principles. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the above said Panchayat Authorities have already moved a separate writ petition as WP(C) No.7445 of 2020 challenging the enactment of the abovesaid amended Rules taking away the discretion of the Panchayat Authorities to reject the grant of licence and that the said writ petition is pending. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner herein has not been impleaded as a party therein and it is learned that no interim order has been **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **15** passed by this Court in the abovesaid WP(C) No.7445 of 2020. 11. Sri. M. P. Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority appearing for 3[rd] respondent would submit that earlier a stop memo was issued by the said authority in view of the complaints raised against the petitioner’s quarry for which Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance was granted and now pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, all the parties concerned including the petitioner, the District Geologist, the respondent Panchayat Authorities etc. have already been afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard in the prior sittings of the Committee of the 3[rd] respondent Authority and on account of the present lock down issues, though site inspection and personal hearing process have been duly completed, orders could not be passed on account of the lock down issues and now the meeting of the competent Committee of the 3[rd] respondent is scheduled to be held on the 2[nd] , 3[rd] and 4[th] of June 2020 in which the decision as the complaints of the objectors which led to the temporary issuance of the stop memo will be rendered by the competent **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **16** Authority to the 3[rd] respondent without much delay. Therefore it is for the 3[rd] respondent to ensure that decision is rendered in the abovesaid matter without any further delay and the proceedings in that regard is duly issued and communicated not only to the petitioner but also to the respondents 1 and 2 (Panchayat Authorities), District Geologist, Kerala State Pollution Control Board. 12. After hearing all the parties concerned and taking note of the legal principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in _**Tommy Thomas’s case**_ (supra), thus Court is of the considered view that respondents 1 and 2 has to consider and grant the requisite establishment and trade licences as the case may be as submitted in Ext.P6 joint application without any further delay, provided that the 3[rd] respondent Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority vacates or revokes the stop memo. Accordingly it is ordered that the 1[st] respondent Committee of the Thalappalam Grama Panchayat as well as the 2[nd] respondent Secretary of the said Panchayat will consider the issue relating to the plea made by the petitioner for grant of the **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **17** establishment licence as well as the trade licence as made out in Ext.P6 and to grant such licences after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to grant the same within two weeks from the date of receipt of the communication from the 3[rd] respondent subject to the condition that those licences need be granted only if 3[rd] respondent vacates the stop memo issued in relation to Ext.P1 environmental clearance. In case there is any delay on the part of the 3[rd] respondent to communicate a copy of the proceedings of the 3[rd] respondent, it is open to the petitioner to produce a copy of such proceedings so passed by the 3[rd] respondent before the 2[nd] respondent to avoid any further delay. Ext.P6 joint application seeking such licences is for a period of five years. It is hoped and expected that respondents 1 and 2 will rise up to the occasion and will fully adhere to the Rule of law and should show due reference and respect to the legal principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in _**Tommy Thomas’s case**_ (supra) so that the petitioner herein who happens to be the litigant therein is not unnecessarily harassed and driven for further litigation. **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **18** 13. Petitioner will produce a certified copy of the judgment before the 2[nd] respondent as well as the 3[rd] respondent for necessary action. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** SPR **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **19** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLARANCE DATED 04.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE SEIAA, KERALA TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 27.05.2016 VALID UPTO 26.05.2028 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM LE-3 LICENSE RENEWED ON 30.01.2019 VALID UPTO 31.03.2004 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE-RENEWAL DATED 13.12.2019 VALID UPTO 31.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER TO OPERATE THE QUARRY COVERED VIDE EXHIBIT P1.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.15505 OF 2016.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **20** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX FOR THE YEAR 2019-2020.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS DATED 26.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERATTUPETTA TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERATTUPETTA TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINE MATE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATION TO THE MINE FOREMAN APPOINTED AS BLAST MAN IN THE PETITIONERS PROPOSED QUARRY.** - **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH AND PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED QUARRY AND THE MAGAZINE, ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERATTUPETTA DATED 28.11.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 13.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.12.2019 ISSUED BY JOLLY GEORGE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.** **WP(C).No.5897 OF 2020** **21** **EXHIBIT P16** **A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.12.2019 ISSUED BY MRS.ELSAMMA TOMY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH DATED 03.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERATTUPETTA SHOWING SURVEY NO.248/3 WHEREIN THE MAGAZINE OF THE PETITIONER SITUATES.** - **EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 03.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERATTUPETTA TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 03.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.**