V.J. Laly and N.J. Siby v. Vazhapilly Grama Panchayat and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 2565 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 V.J.LALY AGED 58 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, VALIAPARAMBIL, KURISUMMOODU P.O. VALIAKULAM, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 104. 2 N.J. SIBY, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.N.J. JOSEPH, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE,, KURUSHUMOODU P.O. VALIAKULAM, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 104. BY ADVS. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.J.VISHNU ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 VAZHAPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KURISUMOODU P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 104. 2 THE SECRETARY, VAZHAPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KURISUMOODU P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 104. 3 SOWPARNIKA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE NO. 705, 1ST MAIN ROAD, C BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU 560037, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, JOJI JOSEPH. BY ADVS. SHRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL) SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE SHRI.MATHEW GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **VIJU ABRAHAM,J** ## **-----------------------** ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021** ## **----------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of May, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P45 order whereby challenge against Ext.P39 order issued by the 2[nd] respondent was rejected by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are as follows: Petitioners are residents of Valiyakulam, Vazhappilly Panchayat, Chethipuzha Village, Changanassery Taluk and the 1[st] petitioner is the convener of an action council called the “Janakeeya Samarasamithi” established by the residents near to the proposed flat complex of the 3[rd] respondent in Vazhappily Village, Kottayam District. The 2[nd] petitioner is a member of the 'Samara Samithi'. The 3[rd] respondent is a private limited construction company engaged in the construction of commercial flats. On 05.10.2016, the 3[rd] **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 2** respondent company made an application for building and development permits before the 1st respondent Panchayath. A development permit for mining sand up to 1979.47 m3 was granted by the Panchayath. Several conditions were imposed in the said permit. Petitioners have a case that a forged development permit has been created by the 3[rd] respondent and that the said aspect could be revealed on a comparison of Ext.P1 and P2. Later, Ext.P3 building permit was issued in favour of the 3[rd] respondent. The contention of the petitioners is that by using a forged development permit the 3[rd] respondent submitted an application before the District Geologist for removal of sand from the site and that the Geologist as per order dated 22.9.2017 permitted to remove 1000 metric tons of sand/earth and subsequently by Ext.P4 order the District Geologist permitted the 3[rd] respondent to remove another 1000 metric ton of earth from the site. When there was large-scale removal of sand/earth from the site, the nearby residents formed an action council called 'Janakeeya ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 3** Samarasamithi'. While so, on 14.2.2018 the 3[rd] respondent gave an application to revise the building permit along with the revised plan. As per the new plan, the building was to have 90 apartments, instead of 74 apartments. While so, the 'Samarasamithi' gave a complaint before the Panchayat as well as the Town Planning Department about the illegality committed by the 3[rd] respondent. Alleging non-consideration of the said application for approval of revised building plan, the 3[rd] respondent approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.11135 of 2020 which was disposed as per Ext.P28 judgment dated 8.6.2020 whereby direction was issued to the 2[nd] respondent Secretary of the Panchayat to take up the request made by the petitioner therein, who is the 3[rd] respondent herein, for grant of approval of modified plan after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and any other objectors and take a considered decision within 10 days from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 4** 3. In compliance with the directions in Ext.P28 judgment, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the 2[nd] respondent for a hearing in the matter. The petitioners were present for hearing on 7.7.2020. The Assistant Secretary of the Panchayat informed the petitioners that a hearing will be conducted by him as the Secretary was in a containment zone in Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, the petitioners telephonically intimated the Secretary and informed her that they would like another hearing before the Secretary as directed by the Court in Ext.P28 judgment and also requested for issuance of a copy of the latest building plan submitted by the 3[rd] respondent. The Secretary promised that a copy of the latest building plan submitted by the 3[rd] respondent for approval will be given to the petitioners and shall also provide opportunity for further hearing. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted by the Assistant Secretary and the petitioners submitted a detailed written submission pointing out each and every illegality ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 5** of the proposed construction of the 3[rd] respondent. 4. In the objection it was pointed out that the District collector has not directed the Panchayat to approve the building plan and that even though the 2[nd] respondent by order dated 19.9.2018, issued a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to surrender the building permit and plan, the same was not done and that it is without complying with the said direction that the Secretary accepted the revised building plan and forwarded to various authorities. It is also pointed out that a private complaint is pending before the Magistrate Court as CMP No.1728 of 2020 with regard to the forging of the development permit. It was also brought to the notice of the Secretary that the stay which was obtained from the LSGD Tribunal against the stop memo was later vacated by the Tribunal. Various violations of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules in the plan were also pointed out before the Secretary. Exts.P30 complaint and Ext.P31 notes of argument were submitted by the petitioners before the 2[nd] respondent. Later, on an application **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 6** under the Right to Information Act, a copy of the building plan was also provided to the petitioners, but on a perusal of the said plan, it was revealed that there were several irregularities which prompted the petitioners to submit Ext.P34 complaint before the Assistant Engineer, LSGD Department. 5. Petitioners have a specific case that Ext.P35 file note on the project maintained by the Panchayat office, did not contain any details of the approval of the plan, etc., and thereupon Ext.P36 was also submitted by the Samithi before the Secretary of the Panchayat. Later, the 1[st] petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act for a copy of the file note with proceedings which happened after 30.07.2020 and on a perusal of Ext.P37 file note, the petitioners came to know that the revised plan submitted by the 3[rd] respondent was approved by the respondent Panchayat on 17.9.2020. Petitioners have a specific case that the said order dated 30.7.2020 was never served on them. Thereafter, the said ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 7** order, produced as Ext.P39 in the writ petition was obtained by the petitioners as per the Right to Information Act. A perusal of Ext.P39 would reveal that none of the irregularities pointed out by the petitioners in the hearing note submitted on 7.7.2020, i.e, Ext.P31, was considered while passing the said order. Petitioners thereupon applied under the Right to Information Act, the minutes of the hearing which was conducted on 7.7.2020 and the petitioners were served with Ext.P40 copy of the said minutes. Petitioners submit that on a perusal of Ext.P40 minutes it could be seen that the same has been countersigned by the Assistant Secretary and not by Secretary as claimed in Ext.P39 order and that a further perusal of the minutes on the hearing conducted on 7.7.2020 would clearly show that none of the contentions raised were properly considered. Petitioners contend that the basic rule of fair hearing that the officer who heard the matter should decide, is violated in the present case. The 2[nd] respondent was not even present in the ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 8** hearing and has passed the impugned order. A perusal of Ext.P43 would clearly revealed that on 7.7.2020 the 2[nd] respondent was on leave. The 1[st] petitioner who was a party to the hearing was never served with a copy of the order and is only when he has applied under the Right to Information Act that a copy of the order was served on him. An appeal was preferred as Appeal No.518/2020 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. An interim order was issued staying the operation of the order of the Secretary and the matter was finally heard by the Tribunal on 23.12.2020 and by Ext.P45 order, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. It is aggrieved by the said decision taken by the Tribunal as per Ext.P45 that the present writ petition is filed. To substantiate their contentions, petitioners rely on the judgment, _**Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others, AIR 1959 SC 308**_ and the decision in _**Automotive Tyre Manufactures Association v. The Designated Authorities and**_ ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 9** ## _**Others, (2011) 2 SCC 258.**_ 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent mainly contending that originally 3rd respondent started construction after obtaining all necessary permissions and licences. Ext R3 (1) is the development permit issued and R3(2) is the building permit issued by the 2nd respondent. Prior to that 3rd respondent obtained NOC from Fire and Rescue Services, Pollution control Board and the Electrical Inspectorate. The transportation of soil from the site was as per the permission granted by the District Geologist evidenced by Ext R3(3) and R3 (4). Thereafter, the 3rd respondent submitted a revised plan by increasing the number of residential buildings from 74 to 90 but without any structural change. Upon complaint made by the 'Samara Samithi', the District Town Planner as per Ext R3(5) permitted the 2nd respondent to process the application for revised permit after curing the defect noted therein. The defects were all in connection with the increase in the number ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 10** of flats to 90. Due to delay, the respondent has dropped the proposal to increase the residential units to 90. Thereupon, Ext R3(9) modified plan was submitted by the 3rd respondent for 74 units itself. There were several complaints and various rounds of litigation and ultimately, pursuant to the direction issued by this court in Ext R3 (17) judgment, the District Collector, Kottayam issued Ext R3 (18) order whereby it was directed that the construction could continue after getting a fresh structural stability certificate and after obtaining the revised plan approved by the local authority. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent as per Ext R3 (19) imposed additional conditions like obtaining fresh clearances from Fire and Rescue Services, Pollution Control Board and the Electrical Inspectorate. Thereafter, necessary sets of plans and drawing was submitted before the 2nd respondent for being forwarded to the abovestated statutory authorities. Thereafter, the electrical inspectorate, Pollution Control Board, Fire and Rescue Services, issued necessary **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 11** clearances as is evident from Ext R3 (20) to R3 (22). The Electricity Board has also submitted their consent as per Ext R3 (23). The pollution control Board has also issued Ext R3 (24) intimating that the consent to establish granted as per Ext R3 (21) is sufficient as it is valid till 31.12.2024. It is thereafter, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court as per Ext P28 judgment, that a well-considered order was passed by the 2nd respondent as Ext.P39. The Tribunal rejected the appeal as per Ext P45 order after considering the contentions of both sides. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent relies on the judgment, _**Ossein and**_ _**Gelatine Manufacturers Association of India v. Modi Alkalies and Chemical Ltd and another, (1989)**_ _**4 SCC 264**_ and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in _**Sudheer T. v. Sheela and Others, 2009 (3) KHC 991.**_ 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by Respondents 1 and 2 also mainly contending that all necessary clearances were obtained by the 3rd ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 12** respondent and only after hearing the contentions of both sides, Ext P39 order was passed. A direction was issued by this court as per Ext P28 judgment to consider the issue of approval of the revised plan after hearing the contentions of both sides. On the date of hearing, the 2nd respondent was in containment zone, Thiruvanathapuram under Triple Lock down due to the first wave of Covid 19 pandemic. Thereupon, the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Kottayam as per Ext R2 (e) order, granted 10 days special leave to the 2nd respondent and granted full Addl. Charge of the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary. The hearing in the matter was conducted on 07.07.2020 and 08.07.2020 by the Assistant Secretary in his capacity as Secretary and heard the parties and recorded the oral submission of all parties. A hearing note was also submitted by the petitioner. After hearing, next step is to make a decision after perusing the records and submission made at the time of the hearing and at that point of time, the 2nd respondent took charge and after ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 13** considering the records, hearing notes, written submissions etc., passed a speaking order as per Ext P39. The contention of the petitioners that the person who heard is not the one who passed the order and therefore the order is vitiated cannot be accepted in as much as the order is a wellconsidered order and that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. The court has directed a particular authority to hear and decide the matter and the said authority has passed Ext P39 order. Institutional hearing is a recognized mode of hearing in Administrative Law. The petitioners were given a fair hearing and all the contentions were noted down during the hearing which is evident from the records produced by the petitioners themselves and therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as contended by the petitioners. 8. I have heard the contentions of both sides. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that Ext P39 order is in violation of the principle of natural justice in as much as the ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 14** hearing was conducted by one authority and the order was issued by another. Admittedly, the proceeding which culminated in Ext P39 was pursuant to a direction issued by this court as per Ext P28 judgment and was during the first phase of Covid 19 pandemic. The direction by this Court was to the 2nd respondent, Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to hear and decide the matter. On the date fixed for hearing, the 2nd respondent was in Containment Zone and as per Ext R2 (e) order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Kottayam, the 2nd respondent was granted 10 days Special Leave and full additional charge of the Secretary was given to the Asst. Secretary. Thereafter, the hearing was conducted by the Asst. Secretary on 07.07.2020 and 08.07.2020 in his capacity as Secretary. The Ext R2 (e) order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Kottayam, is one issued exercising the power under Section 183 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which reads as follows: > _“183. Exercise of functions of Secretary by other officers in certain cases. - The Government, or any authority, authorised by Government may, by_ ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 15** _general or special order, authorise any officer working in the Panchayat to exercise all or any of the functions of the Secretary in his absence.”_ Therefore, the delegation granted to the Assistant Secretary as per Ext R2(e) is perfectly legal and valid. As per the averment in the writ petition, Ext P31 is the note of argument submitted by the petitioners and others at the time of the hearing. Ext P40 is the minutes of the hearing conducted on 07.07.2020 which reveals that all the points raised by the petitioners were duly recorded and admittedly petitioners were also heard. A perusal of Ext P39 order would also reveal that all the relevant aspects have been considered while issuing the order impugned. A perusal of Ext P39 order would also reveal that the said authority has taken into consideration the issuance of necessary consent issued by Fire and Rescue Services, Pollution Control Board and the Electrical Inspectorate. The impugned order would also reveal that the plan, no objection and clearances issued by various authorities were technically examined through the Asst. Engineer, ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 16** Local Self Government Department and that the said authority after examination did not report any violations of the Rules. A perusal of the order impugned would further show that the same has been issued after considering all the consent letters, report of the AE, LSGD, Vazhapilly Grama Panchayat, site inspection report and also the contentions of the parities at the time of the hearing. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment in _**Gullapalli Nageswara**_ _**Rao’s case**_ supra to contend for the position that the procedure now followed for issuance of Ext P39 order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Paragraph 45 of the said judgment reads as follows.: _“45. The second objection is that while the Act and the Rules framed thereunder impose a duty on the State Government to give a personal hearing, the procedure prescribed by the Rules impose a duty on the Secretary to hear and the Chief Minister to decide. This divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. Such a procedure defeats the object_ ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 17** _of personal hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear-up his doubts during the course of the arguments,and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure.”_ _(underline supplied)_ Reliance was also placed by the Senior counsel for the petitioners on _**Automotive Tyre Manufactures**_ _**Association’s**_ case supra, paragraph 55 of the judgment reads as follows: _“55. It is trite that rules of “natural justice” are not embodied rules. The phrase “natural justice” is also not capable of a precise definition. The underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e., fair play in action. In A.K.Kraipak (supra), it was observed that the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice.”_ _(underline supplied)_ ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 18** 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that the decision relied on by the petitioners have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as they were given a fair hearing and the 2nd respondent has taken a decision after considering all the relevant and material facts and therefore, the requirement of natural justice has been fully complied with. He submitted that the Apex Court in _**Ossein and Gelatine**_ _**Manufacturers Association of India’s**_ case supra and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in _**Sudheer’s**_ case supra has settled the law that in such circumstances it could not be said that requirement of natural justice has not been fulfilled. Paragraph 5 of the judgment in _**Ossein**_ ## _**and Gelatine Manufacturers Association of India’s**_ case supra reads as follows: _“5. On the issue of natural justices, we are satisfied that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by any of the circumstances pointed out by the appellant. It is true that the order has been passed by an officer different from the one who heard the parties. However, the proceedings were not in the nature_ ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 19** _of formal judicial hearings. They were in the nature of meetings and full minutes were recorded of all the points discussed at each meeting. It has not been brought to our notice that any salient point urged by the petitioners has been missed. On the contrary, the order itself summarises and deals with all the important objections of the petitioners. This circumstances has not, therefore, caused nay_ _prejudice to the petitioners.”_ _(underline supplied)_ The Full Bench of this Court in _**Sudheer’s**_ case supra after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974)**_ _**2 SCC 831,**_ the decision in _**Gullapalli Nageswara Rao’s case**_ supra and _**Ossein and Gelatine**_ _**Manufacturers Association of India’s**_ case supra, held in Paragraph 13 as follows: _“13. Yet another aspect of the matter, which is very relevant, is the prejudice caused. The earlier view was, violation of natural justice itself was a prejudice and therefore, proof of independent prejudice was uncalled for. Now, the law is that unless prejudice is shown, violation of the principles of natural justice, ipso facto, will not be accepted as a ground for quashing a decision. The rules of natural justice are designed to advance justice and they cannot be allowed to be used as tools of oppression. If a decision is quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, even if the party impugning the order has absolutely no case on admitted and undisputed facts, it may cause irreparable injury and hardship to the opposite party with a cast iron case. He will be unnecessarily dragged to defend the proceedings at the instance of a person with no case at all, but only for the reason of not providing an opportunity of hearing to him. For the failure of the Administrator, over whose actions the parties have no control, to hear one side, the other side may suffer irreparable_ ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 20** _injury, if the order is quashed only on the ground of violation of natural justice So, when a party comes to the Court complaining that the principle, 'he who hear must decide' was violated, those words cannot be taken as a 'open sesame for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the order concerned. This Court must examine whether the case was one requiring a hearing by words of mouth, for effective consideration of the grounds raised by the parties. The Court should also examine whether any prejudice has been pleaded and any material has been placed in support thereof.” (underline supplied)_ Even though the matter was heard by the Asst. Secretary, the arguments raised by the petitioners were fully noted down as is evident from Ext P40 minutes of the hearing held on 07.07.2020. Petitioners were fully heard also. Ext P29 order would reveal that all the relevant matters were properly considered while approving the modified plan submitted by the 3rd respondent. Moreover, the hearing by the Asst. Secretary was necessitated due to the fact that the Secretary was in a containment zone under triple lock down due to the outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic and Asst. Secretary was fully authorized as per Ext R2 (e) order issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Kottayam invoking the power under Section 183 of Panchayat Raj Act. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the decision cited supra, I am ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 21** of the opinion that the principles of natural justice has not been violated only for the reason that the hearing was conducted by the Asst. Secretary and Ext P39 order was issued by the 2nd respondent, the Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayat. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners as per Ext.P45 order has considered all the contentions in a proper manner and entered a finding that Ext.P39 order has been issued after affording a reasonable opportunity to both sides and after verifying and being satisfied that the 3rd respondent posses all clearances and consents issued by the competent authority. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 22** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2565/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. C3.7877/16, DATED 14.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORGED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CREATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. C3-7878/16 DATED 06.07.2017 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT BERING ORDER NO. 688/2017- - 2018/2442/DOY/ML/2017 ISSUED DATED 30.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT GEOLOGIST. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.C/651/18 DATED 30.05.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, KOTTAYAM. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO. 7878/17 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT, DATED 01.06.2018. - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 7878/17 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT, DATED 01.06.2018. - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. C95986/2018 DATED 01.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, VAZHAPILLY PANCHAYAT. - EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. B36585/18/EIK OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR DATED 29.08.2018. - EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, BY THE FLAT OWNERS DATED 21.12.2017. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 23** ||DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 07.9.2018.| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P12|TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION BEARING NO.| ||C3-7878/17(1) DATED 19.09.2018 ISSUED| ||BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.| |EXHIBIT P13|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS| ||HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 34700/2018| ||DATED 25.10.2018.| |EXHIBIT P14|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED| ||20.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST| ||PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR| ||(ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND| ||RESCUE SERVICES.| |EXHIBIT P15|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED| ||BEFORE THE DYSP, CHANGANASERRY DATED| ||29.10.2018 WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT| ||RECEIPT.| |EXHIBIT P16|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY| ||THE SAMITHI BEFORE THE RDO, DATED| ||30.10.2018.| |EXHIBIT P17|TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION BEARING NO.| ||B3-6585/18/EIK DATED 30.102018 ISSUED| ||BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P18|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE| ||1ST PETITIONER DATED 01.11.2018 ALONG| ||WITH RECEIPT.| |EXHIBIT P19|TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 1 (1) OF| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT DATED| ||10.10.2018.| |EXHIBIT P20|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS| ||HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 32757/2018| ||DATED 02.11.2018.| |EXHIBIT P21|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS| ||HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 30568/2018| ||DATED 07.11.2018.| |EXHIBIT P22|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 456/18 DATED| ||28.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE| **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 24** OFFICER. - EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LSGI TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 341/2018 DATED 21.02.2019. - EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. 1502/2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, VAZHAPILLY PANCHAYAT DATED 22.03.2019. - EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES DATE 26.12.2019. - EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF SUBMISSION OF BUILDING PLAN ON 26.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH SECRETARY. - EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 11135 OF 2020 DATED 08.06.2020. - EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A31045/2020 DATED 01.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE SAMARSAMITHI BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.6.2020 ALONG WITH RECEIPT. - EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES/COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT DATED 07.07.2020. - EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE ONE OF THE SAMARASAMITHI MEMBERS DATED 16.04.2020 ALONG WITH RECEIPT. - EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. A42286/2020 DATED 09.04.2020 ISSUED BY ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 25** THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |EXHIBIT P34|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMISSION| |---|---| ||BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST.| ||ENGINEER, LSGD DATED 27.07.2020.| |EXHIBIT P35|TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTE RECEIVED| ||FROM THE PANCHAYAT ON 07.08.2020.| |EXHIBIT P36|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY| ||THE SAMARASAMITHI BEFORE THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT DATED 5.09.2020 ALONG WITH| ||RECEIPT.| |EXHIBIT P37|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI| ||APPLICATION CONTAINING FILE NOTE,| ||RECEIVED FROM THE PANCHAYAT ON| ||14.10.2020.| |EXHIBIT P38|TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION| ||SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY| ||THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27.10.2020.| |EXHIBIT P39|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE| ||SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT NO. C-3| ||7878/2016 DATED 30.07.2020 AS RECEIVED| ||IN REPLY DATED 30.10.2020 TO THE RTI| ||APPLICATION ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED| ||30.10.2020.| |EXHIBIT P40|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING| ||CONDUCTED ON 07.07.2020 RECEIVED IN RTI| ||REPLY DATED 10.11.2020.| |EXHIBIT P41|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.| ||B2.242/2020/KTM ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY| ||DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM DATED| ||20.03.2020.| |EXHIBIT P42|TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT OF THE ASST.| ||ENGINEER. LSGD DATED 05.06.2020.| |EXHIBIT P43|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF VAZHAPILLY| ||GRAMA PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT DATED| ||06.11.2020.| |EXHIBIT P44|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM| ||BEARING APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2020 FILED BY| ## **W.P.(C)No.2565 of 2021 26** THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXCLUDING ITS ANNEXURES. - EXHIBIT P45 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 07.01.2021 IN APPEAL NO. 518/2020. - EXHIBIT P46 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KOTTAYAM DATED 11.02.201 WITHOUT ENCLOSURE. EXHIBIT P47 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.01.221 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P48 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, DATED 11.01.2021. WITHOUT ENCLOSURE. EXHIBIT P49 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES DATED 19.01.2021.