W.P.(C). Nos. 4879 & 10514 of 2019: O. Gangadharan & Others v State of Kerala & Others; Nanminda High School Society & Secretary v State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).NO.4879 OF 2019(H)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**O.GANGADHARAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 70 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KELAPPAN, OTHAYOTHUMMAL HOUSE, VATTOLEY BAZAR**| ||**P.O., BALUSSERRY, KOZHIKODE-673612.**| |**2**|**C.REGHUNATHAN,**| ||**AGED 59 YEARS**| ||**S/O.E.K. KRISHNAN, SIVAM, MANKAVU P.O,**| ||**KOZHIKODE-673007.**| |**3**|**K. BALAKRISHNA KIDAVU,**| ||**AGED 59 YEARS**| ||**S/O. RARUKUTTY NAIR, KOODATHINGAN HOUSE, EREMANGALAM**| ||**P.O, BALUSSERRY, KOZHIKODE-673612.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN**| ||**SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN**| ||**SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN**| ||**SRI.SABU GEORGE**| ||**SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION**| ||**DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,**| ||**DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,JAGATHI,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.**| |**3**|**THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673573.**| W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 2 **4 NANMINDA HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY, NANMINDA, BALUSSERRY, KOZHIKODE-673612, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 5 C.P. VENUGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 78 YEARS S/O.LATE RAMANKUTTY KIDAVU, CHERIYAPARAMPATH HOUSE, EKAROOL P.O, KOZHIKODE-673574. R4 BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRGP.SMT.NISHA BOSE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).10514/2019(L), THE COURT ON 20.08.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).NO.10514 OF 2019(L)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**NANMINDA HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY,**| |---|---| ||**NANMINDA,BALUSSERRY,KOZHIKODE-6763612,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.**| |**2**|**SECRETARY**| ||**NANMINDA HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY, NANMINDA, BALUSSERRY,**| ||**KOZHIKODE-673 612.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**| ||**GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,**| ||**DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,**| ||**JAGATHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.**| |**3**|**THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**THAMARASSERY,KOZHIKODE-673573.**| |**4**|**C.P.VENUGOPALAN NAIR,**| ||**AGED 78 YEARS**| ||**S/O LATE RAMANKUTTY KIDAVU,**| ||**CHERIYAPARAMPATH HOUSE,EKAROOL.P.O,**| ||**KOZHIKODE-673574.**| ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 4 **5 O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 70 YEARS S/O KELAPPAN,OTHAYOTHUMMAL HOUSE, VETTOLEY BAZAR.P.O,BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673612. 6 C.REGHUNATHAN, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.E.K.KRISHNAN,SIVAM,MANKAVU.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673007. 7 K.BALAKRISHNA KIDAVU, AGED 59 YEARS S/O RARUKUTTY NAIR,KOODATHINGAN HOUSE,EREMANGALAM.P.O,BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673612.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019 ALONG WITH WP(C).4879/2019(H), THE COURT ON 20.08.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 ## **P.V.ASHA J.** ## **------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019** **-------------------------------------** Dated this the 20[th ] day of August, 2019 ## **J U D G M E N T** Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by Government temporarily granting approval to the 5[th] respondent as Manager of the Nanminda High School, Balusserry. As the issue involved is the same, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents referred to in this judgment are as described in W.P.(C) No. 4879 of 2019. 2. The dispute is between the members of the Nanminda High School Society (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10514 of 2019). Petitioners claim to be the members of the Society, which was established on 10.05.1950. It is stated that the 5[th] respondent was the Manager of the School till 31.12.2017. As per Ext.P3 order dated 15.06.2016, the approval of managership of the 5[th] respondent was extended for a further period of 2 years from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2017. Petitioners alleged that 6 ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 the documents are fabricated and manipulated at the instance of the 5[th] respondent to show that a meeting of the general body was convened in the PWD Rest house at Balusserry on 24.01.2018 in which 37 members participated and a committee consisting of 21 members was elected; thereafter in the meeting of the committee convened at the residence of 5[th] respondent, the office bearers including the Manager were elected. According to petitioners, after the meeting of the general body at PWD Rest house at 10.00 a.m., it was not possible for the members to meet at the residence of the 5[th] respondent at 10.00 a.m., on the very same day. It is stated that petitioners, who are members of the Society, did not receive any such notice as prescribed in Ext.P1 and therefore there was no valid meeting or election on 24.01.2018. Relying on the information obtained on Exts.P4, P5 and P6 applications submitted under the Right to Information Act, petitioners claim that the minutes Ext.P5 series are fabricated. 3. The 5[th] respondent thereafter submitted Ext.P6 W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 7 application before the 3[rd] respondent requesting for approval as manager stating that he was re-elected. On receipt of the minutes, the petitioners submitted Ext.P7 objection before the 3[rd] respondent alleging that no meeting was convened with notice to the members and therefore, there was no valid election. 4. Petitioners thereafter filed W.P.(C).No.11347 of 2018 and as per Ext.P8 judgment, the 3[rd] respondent was directed to consider their objections also while considering the request of 5[th] respondent for approval as manager. Thereafter, petitioners submitted Ext.P11 objections before the 3[rd] respondent. The DEO passed Ext.P14 order on 20.06.2018 approving the 5[th] respondent as Manager for the period from 24.01.2018 to 23.01.2021 or till the election of a new manager under the supervision of the civil court. Petitioners thereupon approached the DPI, who passed Ext.P15 order directing the DEO to act as temporary manager till a decision is rendered by the civil court. The 5[th] respondent filed a revision petition before the Government. The petitioners as well as the 5[th] W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 8 respondent approached this Court challenging Ext.P15 order of the DPI. As per Ext.P17 judgment, the writ petitions were disposed of, directing the Government to pass orders on the claims, after notice to all parties. Ext.P18 order was passed thereafter, allowing the 5[th] respondent to continue as Manager temporarily. According to the petitioners, Government did not consider their contentions that there had not been any election in a validly conducted general body meeting and hence there was no valid election of the 5[th] respondent also. They stated that two of the members of the society had filed O.S.218 of 2018 before the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode for a declaration that there was no valid meeting of the general body or election on 24.01.2018 and for an injunction against the office bearers alleged to be elected. It is stated that a meeting of the general body was convened on 27.05.2018 on supervision of an Advocate Commissioner appointed in that suit and the decisions made in the meeting held on 24.01.2018 were superseded and a fresh executive committee was elected and the petitioner 9 ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 No.3 was elected as new Manager. 5. The 5[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to the 5[th] respondent, he was elected as Manager in accordance with rules and in a validly convened meeting on 24.01.2018, after proper notice to all members. According to the 5[th] respondent, there was no further meeting as claimed by the petitioners superseding the decisions of 24.01.2018 and if at all there was such a meeting it was illegal; the legality of the meeting or the election in such a meeting are matters to be decided in the civil court; Government has left the matter to be decided by the civil court while allowing the petitioner to act as the Manager temporarily. 6. The 4[th] respondent Society has filed a counter affidavit supporting the petitioners. The Society has along with its Secretary filed W.P.(C).No.10514 of 2019 in which Shri.C.P.Venugopalan Nair is the 4[th] respondent and the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.4879 of 2019 are respondents 5 to 7. Its contention is that there is no provision in Ext.P1 rules and regulations of the Society permitting a W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 **==> picture [12 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Manager to continue till the next election. According to it, the Manager can continue only for a period of 3 years, as the committee can hold office only for 3 years. 7. According to the society there are 133 members in the Society. The 5[th] respondent was elected and approved as Manager only for the period upto 31.12.2017. It is stated that there was no valid general body meeting with notice to the members and no decision was taken by a meeting in which there was quorum, re-electing the petitioner or another committee. It is stated that even as per the fabricated documents only 37 members participated in the general body meeting held on 24.01.2018, out of which 21 are stated to be elected to the committee. It is stated that the decisions if any taken by the executive Committee on 24.01.2018 are superseded by the general body in its meeting held on 27.05.2018. It is stated that a meeting was convened on 12.05.2018 in which it was decided to convene a meeting of general body meeting on 27.05.2018, with the agenda “to rectify the defects occurred in the meeting alleged to have been taken place W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 11 on 24.01.2018.” It is also stated that even though the 5[th] respondent filed O.S.No.231 of 2018 for restraining the general body meeting on 27.05.2018, no interim order was passed. At the same time, a general body meeting was held on 27.05.2018 under the supervision of Advocate Commissioner appointed in O.S.No.218 of 2018. It is stated that in that meeting held on 27.05.2018, 55 members participated. The general body superseded the decisions of the alleged meeting held on 24.01.2018 and elected a new committee, in which Sri. Balakrishna Kidavu-the 3[rd] petitioner was elected as Manager. It is stated that the Secretary of the Society thereafter submitted Ext.P7 letter (produced in W.P.(C) No. 10514 of 2019) before the DEO for approval of the 3[rd] petitioner as Manager. It is also stated that 5 of the members who had signed in proof of participation in the meeting held on 24.01.2018, have submitted a letter (produced as Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) 10514 of 2019) stating that there was no such meeting at PWD Rest House and that their signatures were obtained by the 5[th] respondent on different dates. Therefore according to the W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 12 Society, the 3[rd] petitioner, who was elected on 27.05.2018 is liable to be approved, but the application for his approval was rejected. It is stated that appeal filed against the order of DEO is pending before the DPI. 8. According to them the DEO passed Ext.P4 order without considering the subsequent election. It is stated that the Society had filed an appeal before the DPI against the order of the DEO. According to the Society, respondent No.5 cannot be chosen as Manager just because he has acted as Manager for the last several years. 9. Referring to 'Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings', the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that in the absence of a quorum there is no valid meeting and the quorum is to be present throughout the meeting. In the absence of the prescribed quorum, the meeting would be invalid. 10. According to the society when it is found that there should be someone to function as Manager that someone should be one chosen by a person who is at least the owner of the institution and in this case the society. 13 ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in **T.K.Eipe v. K.M.Koshi** (1960 KLT 803), it was argued that the Manager is the legally authorized delegate of the educational agency, who shall be responsible to the Department as well as the management of the institution. 11. I heard M/s Balakrishna Iyer and S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in both the writ petition, Sri. G. Sreekumar (Chelur) for the 5[th] respondent and Ms. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader. On consideration of contentions raised on both sides it is found necessary to have a look at the provisions contained in Ext.P1 rules, which governs the administration of the affairs of the society. 12. Clause 7 of Ext.P1 provides that the affairs of the society shall be managed by a committee consisting of 21 members. As per Clause 9, the committee which is the governing body shall be elected from the general body and it shall hold office for 3 years. As per Clause 11, a President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and a 14 ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 Correspondent shall be elected from among the members of the committee. Clause 10 provides that committee shall meet once in three months and three days clear notice is to be given to the members. As per clause 14, one third of the committee shall be the quorum. Clause 24 provides that a general body of the members shall meet once in a year and it can ratify or cancel any decision of the committee. One fourth of the members of the Society shall form the quorum of general body. 13. Whether the minutes of the meeting Ext.P5 are fabricated or not or whether there was proper notice or not, the dispute itself is with respect to the meeting convened on 24.01.2018. It is also relevant to note that another meeting is also alleged to have been held on 27.05.2018 to rectify the decision taken in the earlier meeting. Ext.P5 series of minutes would show that a general body meeting was held on 24.01.2018 at the PWD Guest House, Balusserry at 08.30 a.m in which 37 persons participated and out of that 21 persons were elected towards the executive committee. It would show that the ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 15 1[st] executive committee met on 24.01.2018 at the residence of the 5[th] respondent at 10 A.M, in which 20 members participated. It would also show that office bearers of the executive committee were elected in the said meeting and the 5[th] respondent was elected as the Manager. 14. The petitioners as well as the Society claim that there was no quorum; there was no proper notice; they have got 5 members who have out of the 37 saying that they did not participate in the meeting. Their letter is therefore decisive of the quorum which requires one fourth of 133. In other words but for the letters received from the 5 members there was quorum for the meeting held on 24.01.2018. Therefore it is a disputed question to be resolved in a civil suit. 15. In Ext.P18 order Government has allowed the 5[th] respondent only on a temporary measure, while upholding the order passed by the DEO approving the 5[th] respondent as Manager. Such approval is granted subject to the decision to be taken in the civil cases. 16. The question whether a valid meeting was held on W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 16 24.01.2018 or not, is pending consideration in the civil suit. None of the petitioners have a case that the election stated to have been conducted on 27.05.2018 was based on any direction or permission granted by the civil court. Their case is that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed to supervise the meeting convened on 27.05.2018. Therefore unless and until there is a finding by the civil court that the meeting or election held on 24.01.2018 is invalid, the order passed by the DEO or Ext.P18 order passed by Government cannot be said to be improper. 17. The fact that the 5[th] respondent had been continuing as Manager from 2014 onwards is not disputed. As long as there is no order declaring that the election conducted on 24.01.2018 is illegal, there is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Government in allowing the 5[th] respondent to continue as Manager- temporarily. In order to protect the interest of the institution, it is always proper that there is no vacuum and there is a Manager to administer the affairs of the School rather than entrusting the educational officer who is otherwise 17 ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 burdened with various responsibilities. 18. The petitioners have stated that the appeal filed against the rejection of application for approval of the 3[rd] petitioner is not so far disposed of by the Director of Public Instructions. When Government has passed Ext.P18 order after hearing all the parties it is not necessary for a lower authority to pass orders on the very same issue and a direction as sought for disposal of the appeal is not necessary. 19. Though it is correct that Ext.P1 rules do not provide for continuance of a Manager till the next election as found in the impugned orders, as pointed out by the petitioners those orders do not warrant any interference in the circumstances of the case. In fact what is provided is the executive committee is to hold office for three years. Manager is to be appointed from among the members of the executive committee. Ext.P1 rules or the KER do not envisage a vacuum in the management of a school as held by this Court in the judgment of this Court in **Mar Theophilus v. State of Kerala** [1986 KLT SN.57]. 18 ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 Government have taken a decision to see that there is no vacuum in the management of the School. In this case the election of the 5[th] respondent as well as that of the 3[rd] petitioner are under dispute and the question of validity of election of the 3[rd] petitioner would arise only if the election of the 5[th] respondent is found illegal. Therefore the action of the Government cannot be said to be illegal. 20. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners are claiming that there was no quorum for the meeting held on 24.01.2018 on the basis of letters from those who are disowning their personal presence in the meeting, without disputing their signatures. For that reason also I find that an interference under Article 226 is unwarranted in such cases. In the above circumstances, petitioners are free to approach the civil court or get the civil case expedited or wait for the decision of the civil court. Till a decision is taken by the civil court, the 5[th] respondent shall continue as Manager temporarily, as directed by the Government. Therefore, I do not find any reason to ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 **==> picture [12 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** interfere with the orders passed by the Government. The writ petitions are dismissed. The 5[th] respondent shall be allowed to continue as Manager provisionally and subject to the orders to be passed in O.S.No.218 of 2018. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE** AS W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 20 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4879/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SOCIETY, DATED 105-1950.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE SOCIETY DATED 10-51950.** **EXHIBIT P3** - **A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A1/3122/2016 DATED 15.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT NO.4** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13-3-2018 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO.3 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY RESPONDENT NO.3 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 24.3.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24-1-2018 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.3** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21.2.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.4.2018 IN WPC NO.11347 OF 2018.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4.4.2018 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO.3** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.4.2018 GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.** - **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION** 21 ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 **DATED 12.4.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3 WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS.** **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF PETITIONER NO.1 HELD ON 27.5.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF PETITIONER NO.1 HELD ON 27.5.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2018 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3** - **EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.M341821/2018/D.P.I DATED 29.6.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GEDNF2/251/2018-G-EDN DATED 5.7.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.** - **EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.8.2018 IN WPC.NO.22904 OF 2018.** - **EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(ORD) NO.614/2019/-GED DATED 16.2.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R4 A** A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/3122/2016 DATED 15.06.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3. - **EXHIBIT R4 B** A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.05.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3. - **EXHIBIT R4 C** A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.06.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3. - **EXHIBIT R5 A** A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O S NO.218 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED NIL 22 W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10514/2019** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SOCIETY, DATED 10.5.1950.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE SOCIETY DATED 10.5.1950.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A1/31322/2016 DATED 15.5.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF PETITIONER NO.1 HELD ON 27.5.2018.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF PETITIONER NO.1 HELD ON 27.5.2018** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.5.2018, SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.6.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2018 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3** **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 29.6.2018 FILED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS.** **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.M341821/2018/D.P.I DATED 29.6.2018 EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GEDNF2/251/2018-G-EDN DATED 5.7.2018 ISSUED BY** 23 ## W.P.(C).Nos.4879 & 10514 of 2019 ## **RESPONDENT NO.1** **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.7.2018 IN W.P(C)NO.22904 0F 2018 EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.07.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.22904 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.11.2018 IN W.P(C)NO.35888 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(ORD)NO.614/2019/-GED DATED 16.2.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.**