WP(C) Nos.23631 & 23244 of 2022 – Rajumon Granites Maleswamangalam v. The Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department; M/s Alankar Granites v. Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayat & others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 23631 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 M/S RAJUMON GRANITES MALESWAMANGALAM, P.O. THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GOVINDANKUTTY, AGED 48, S/O PADMANABHAN NAIR, KIZHAKANCHERY VILLAGE, ALATHOOR TALUK, KIZHAKANCHERY DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 680588 2 E .P GOVINDHANKUTTY AGED 52 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR , M/S RAJUMON GRANITES, S/O PADMANABHAN NAIR, KIZHAKANCHERY VILLAGE, ALATHOOR TALUK, KIZHAKANCHERRY DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678684 BY ADVS. RAJIT ANJANA GOVIND ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT| |---|---| ||LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT| ||SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001| |2|THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT| ||FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695000| |3|THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY| ||OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,| ||KESAVADASAPURAM , PATTOM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -| ||695000| |4|THE WILD LIFE WARDEN| ||OFFICE OF THE WILD LIFE WARDEN, DIVISION PEECHI, PEECHI| ||P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680653| |5|5. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR| ||WILD LIFE, CONSERVATOR OF FOREST OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN| ||- 678009| |6|THE MEMBER SECRETARY| ||DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY AND| ||SUB COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001| |7|THE THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH| ||REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVILWAMALA P O, THRISSUR,| ||PIN - 680588| ||BY ADVS.| ||BRIJESH MOHAN| ||GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1)| WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 2 R.RAJPRADEEP SRI.S.KANNAN-SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).23244/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 23244 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** M/S. ALANKAR GRANITES V.P XII/373-B, PONJASSERY P.O., VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.A. JALALUDHEEN, PIN - 683547 BY ADVS. K.I.ABDUL RASHEED DEEPA SASIDHARAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680588 2 THE SECRETARY THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680588 3 THE WILD LIFE WARDEN VAZHANI WILD LIFE SANCTUARY, PEECHI, PIN - 680653 4 ADDL.R4: THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680020 ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 IN IA 3/2022 IN WP(C) NO.23244/2022 BY ADVS. BRIJESH MOHAN R.RAJPRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).23631/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 4 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** ================================== **W.P.(C) Nos.23631 & 23244 of 2022** ================================== Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** These writ petitions relate to the functioning crushing units within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Choolannur Pea Fowl Sanctuary, a notified sanctuary under the provisions of Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The prayer in W.P.(C)No.23244 of 2022 is against Exts.P8 and P9, which are a stop memo and a notice issued by the Assistant Wildlife Warden for closure of the crusher unit run by the petitioner. The prayer in W.P.(C)No.23631 of 2022 is against Exts.P8 to P10 orders, which are issued by respondents 7, 4 and 3 with regard to the functioning of the crusher unit within the notified ESZ area of the Choolannur Wildlife Sanctuary. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 5 ## have also perused the pleadings placed on record. 3. The essential contention raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions is to the effect that while quarrying is a restricted activity within the ESZ, which formed the buffer areas around notified sanctuaries, the operation of crusher units is not such a restricted activity and that therefore, the existing crusher units of the petitioners are liable to be permitted to function, since the crusher units are not specifically restricted in terms of the guidelines dated 09.02.2011. It is submitted that the notices are issued referring to the specific directions of the Apex Court and that the Apex Court had issued the directions taking note of the guidelines dated 09.02.2011 and since the guidelines do not specifically prohibit the functioning of existing crusher units within the ESZ, the action taken against the petitioners' units is completely misconceived. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.23631 of 2022 that the notices issued to the petitioners reveal that there is a further contention that the petitioners have encroached into the WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 6 sanctuary as such and that the said issue is pending consideration before the Forest Tribunal in O.A.No.25/2022 and that there was an order of status quo in the O.A., which has been modified awaiting directions of this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court to contend that the activity being carried out by them, admittedly, within the ESZ is not prohibited activity under the guidelines dated 09.02.2011. 6. Referring to paragraph No.44(e) of the judgment of the Apex Court in **T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India** [2022 (3) KLT 739(SC)], the learned counsel would contend that it is specifically with regard to the activities mentioned in the guidelines of 09.02.2011 that the Apex Court had issued directions and that it is only in case the activity being carried out is a prohibited activity in terms of the guidelines dated 09.02.2011, that the notices which have been issued to the petitioners would be sustainable. It is contended that since the 09.02.2011 guidelines prohibits only mining activities as also the setting up of the industries which WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 7 cause pollution and since the petitioners' crusher units were already in existence even at the time of the issuance of guidelines, the judgment of the Apex Court cannot be relied on to state that the crusher units which are already in existence are liable to be discontinued on the basis of the directions. 7. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in **T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India** [2023 (3) KLT 144 (SC)] dated 26.04.2023, which clarified that the directions contained in the earlier judgment would not be applicable to the ESZ, in respect of which a draft and final notification has been issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and in respect of proposals which have been received by the Ministry. It is contended that it is only in cases where the final notifications are issued that the stop memo could have been issued. 8. Reliance is also placed on the order in I.A.No.3949/2016 dated 28.04.2023 to contend that only activities which are prohibited by both the guidelines as well as the notification, are required to be prohibited and it is only WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 8 in respect of mining activity that the general prohibition applies. It is, therefore, contended that while a new crusher unit cannot be set up within the ESZ, the prohibition will not apply in respect of an existing crusher unit. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further rely on a notice issued by the District Collector dated 21.06.2023 to contend that notices have been issued for the closing down of all quarries and crusher units within the prohibited distance from the Choolannur Peafowl Sanctuary and while it has been specifically stated that commercial quarrying and mining is prohibited within a distance of 1 km from the prohibited area, nothing specific stated about crusher units. 10. The respondents have placed detailed counter affidavits on record in both the writ petitions. It is contended that the notification dated 09.02.2011 specifically prohibits setting up of industries causing pollution (water, air, soil, noise etc.,). It is contended that the consent issued to the petitioners in W.P(C) No.23631 of 2022 itself would show that the unit operates machines having a Horse Power of 843 units WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 9 and that the industry is granted consent in the orange category. It is submitted that the provisions of the consent itself provide for pollution control measures and it is clear from the consent itself that the industry is a polluting industry. 11. It is further contended that the guidelines are only indicative in nature and that the power had been granted to the States to issue specific guidelines with regard to specified Wildlife Sanctuaries. It is submitted relying on Ext.R4(c) draft notification that all new and existing, minor and major mineral, stone quarrying and crusher units are prohibited in accordance with the notification and that there is no exemption provided to the existing units within the ESZ, if the units are crusher units or mining units. 12. It is further contended that by the modification of the directions in paragraph 44(e) by paragraph 66 of the order dated 26.04.2023, it is crystal clear that not only the restrictions contained in the guidelines dated 09.02.2011, but also the provisions contained in the ESZ notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 10 activities have to be specifically adhered. 13. The learned Government Pleader has taken me through the three orders of the Apex Court in support of the contention that all the conditions in the guidelines dated 09.02.2011 as well as in the draft or final notifications issued with regard to specific Wildlife Sanctuaries have to be adhered to. 14. The learned Special Government Pleader, Forest appearing for the respondents in W.P.(C) No.23244 of 2022 has also taken me extensively through the provisions of the ESZ notification published in respect of the Choolannur Wild Life Sanctuary as well as an office memorandum dated 08.08.2019 to contend that all developmental activities or projects located within notified eco sensitive zones are liable to be regulated and governed by the concerned ESZ notifications, whether they are draft or final notifications. 15. Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that specific directions in the first judgment i.e., judgment of the Apex Court in **T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India** [2022 (3) KLT 739(SC)] was WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 11 ## as follows:- “ _44. We accordingly direct:_ _(a) Each protected forest, that is national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities prescribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsisting activities are concerned. (b) In the event, however, the ESZ is already prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer zone beyond one kilometre is proposed under any statutory instrument for a particular national park or wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decision in that regard, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering the area beyond one kilometre as proposed shall be maintained._ _(e) In the event any activity is already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as the case may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the 9th February 2011 Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union Territory and the person responsible for such activities in such a situation shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six months. Such permission shall be given once the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is satisfied that the activities concerned do not come within the prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of this order in a legitimate manner. No new permanent structure shall be_ WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 12 _permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ._ _(p) In the event there is any subsisting order of any High Court or any Court subordinate to such High Court covering any of the issues dealt with by this Court in this order, this order shall prevail over any such order which may be contrary to these directions.”_ 16. These directions were modified in the order reported ## in **T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India** [2023 (3) KLT 144 (SC)]. The reasons with regard to the clarification are evident at paragraph No.52 which reads as follows:- _“52. As already discussed hereinabove, the necessity to have ESZs is to provide a buffer zone around the Protected Areas. The rights of the villagers residing in the Protected Areas are required to be settled in accordance with the provisions contained in the 1972 Act and such villagers are rehabilitated outside the Protected Areas. However, no such settlement of rights is available to the villagers residing in the ESZs areas.. As stated in the said Guidelines, the purpose of declaring ESZs is not to hamper the day to day activities of the citizens. If the direction as issued is continued, it would certainly hamper the day to day activities of the citizens residing in ESZs. As such, we find that the said direction needs to be modified.”_ 17. It was noticed by the Apex Court that final notifications, draft notification and proposals are pending with regard to Wildlife Sanctuaries all over the country. The WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 13 direction in Paragraph No.44(a) was modified and clarified that the directions would not be applicable in the ESZ, in respect of which a draft and final notification has been issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and in respect of proposals which have been received by the Ministry. The plain meaning, therefore, is that where larger areas have been notified either in a draft notification or a final notification or even in a proposal pending before the Ministry, the larger area as provided in those notifications or proposals will have to be adhered to. This aspect is aptly clarified by the third order reported in **T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India** [2023 (3) KLT 269(SC)], wherein it is specifically stated as follows:- _“13. It will further be relevant to refer to paragraph 66.1 of our judgment dated 26th April, 2023, which reads thus:_ _"66(i) The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities;"_ _14. It could thus clearly be seen that we have directed that MoEF as well as all the State Governments/Union Territories shall strictly follow the provisions in the Guidelines dated_ WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 14 _9th February, 2011, as also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities._ _15. As such, our directions are very much clear. Whatever is prohibited under the 2011 guidelines and whatever is additionally prohibited under the specific ESZ notifications of the particular Protected Areas have to be strictly followed._ _22. As such, any activity, which is prohibited by both the guidelines as well as the ESZ notification shall strictly be prohibited. Since the mining activity in ESZ area is a prohibited activity, there is no question of such an activity being permitted in an ESZ area even if it falls beyond the distance of one kilometre from the boundary of the protected area._ _23. We clarify that even if in a particular case, the ESZ is more than one kilometre, still, if the concerned area where mining is proposed falls within the ESZ, the mining activity will not be permitted, even if it falls in an area which is beyond one kilometre from the boundary of the Protected Area.”_ 18. Having considered the contentions advanced on both sides, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioners that the 09.02.2011 guidelines does not specifically prohibit crusher units which are already functioning within the ecologically sensitive zones and would apply only to setting up of new polluting industries cannot be accepted, in view of, the specific directions of the Apex Court as referred to above. WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 15 Moreover, since the draft notification specifically provides the crusher units within the ESZ are prohibited and since the contention on facts that the petitioners' Units come within the ESZ of the Choolannur Peafowl Sanctuary is not in dispute, I am of the opinion that the prayers as sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, all contentions of the parties with regard to the encroachment by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23631 of 2022 into the Wildlife Sanctuary are left open to be decided in the appropriate proceedings. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** SSK/27/06 WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 16 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23244/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |ExhibitP1|TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01-| ||01-2015.| |ExhibitP2|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION| ||AS SMALL SCALE INDUSTRY ISSUED FROM THE| ||DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR| |ExhibitP3|TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE| ||NO. 3592/2014 DATED 29-08-2014 ISSUED FROM| ||FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT.| |Exhibit4|TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.| ||N/D12/TCR/12/2583/2016 DATED 07-07-2016| ||ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND| ||BOILERS.| |ExhibitP5|TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY| ||THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,| ||FILE NO. PCB/TSR/IC/421/2007 DATED 29-05-| ||2018| |ExhibitP6|TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENSE NO. 63/21-| ||22/MM/DL/GA/1845/C1/TDO/21 DATED 12-11-2021| ||ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND| ||GEOLOGY| |ExhibitP7|TRUE COPY OF THE D &O LICENSE NO. SC-2-| ||1396/22/2022-23 DATED 16-05-2022 ISSUED BY| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT| |ExhibitP8|TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO. SC2-1325/22| ||DATED 24-06-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT| |ExhibitP9|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. PC1-806/2022| ||DATED 05/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT| |ExhibitP10|TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 07-07-2022| ||PASSED BY THE 15TH KERALA LEGISLATIVE| ||ASSEMBLY ON ITS 5TH CONFERENCE| |ExhibitP11|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-| ||07-2022| |ExhibitP11(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14-07-2022| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-06-2022 IN| ||WPC NO. 202/1995 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME| ||COURT OF INDIA| |Exhibit P13|TRUE COPY OF GUIDELINE DATED 09-02-2011| ||ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND| ||FOREST| WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 17 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 2205/1/2014 DATED 30-09-2014 OF PAZHAYANNUR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 2205/1/2014 DATED 30-09-2014 OF PAZHAYANNUR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERS OF THE CRUSHER UNIT DATED 25-02-2008 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/06/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P16 Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19-10-2022 Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.B FOR STORING THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19-10-2022 Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 1910-2022 FOR REMITTING THE REQUIRED APPLICATION FEE. WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 18 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23631/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE FACTORY LICENSE ISSUED BY| ||THE PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER,| ||DATED 14.07.2021| |Exhibit P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE| ||POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 10.04.2020| |Exhibit P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY| ||THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT DATED| ||09.03.2022 AND 12.05.2022| |Exhibit P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE PERMIT GRANTED| ||TO THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT| ||DIVISION OFFICER, THE FIRE & RESCUE| ||SERVICES, THRISSUR DATED 27.09.2003| |Exhibit P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC TO THE PETITIONER| ||ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,| ||DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, THRISSUR DATED| ||30.7.2007| |Exhibit P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 7TH| ||RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2017| |Exhibit P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER| ||TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. S.C-2-| ||1817/22 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED| ||24.06.2022| |Exhibit P9|THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO PCI-| ||806/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED| ||05.07.2022| |Exhibit P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO| ||570/C2/DCO/2022 DATED 14.07.2022 ISSUED BY| ||THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER| |Exhibit P11|A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY MOEF| ||DATED 09.02.2011| |Exhibit P12|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 202/1995| ||OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED| ||03.06.2022| |Exhibit P13|A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED| ||BY THE THIRUVILWAMALA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED| ||05.07.2021| |Exhibit P14|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 264/2022| ||DATED 15.02.2022 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT| |Exhibit P15|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION| ||NO.25/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE| ||THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ( CAMP :| ||PALAKKAD)| RESPONDENT EXHIBITS WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 19 EXHIBIT R4(a): A true copy of the application submitted by Sri. E. Krishnakumar dated 16.08.2021 before the 4th respondent EXHIBIT R4(b): A true copy of the encroachment sketch dated 05.01.2022 prepared by the Assistant Director, Forest Mini Survey, Kozhikode EXHIBIT R4(c): A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION DATED 25.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE MoEF EXHIBIT R4(d) A true copy of the Google Satellite Map showing the location of Chulannur Peafowl Sanctuary EXHIBIT R4(e) A true copy of the Google Satellite Map showing the encroachment over the Chulannur Peafowl Sanctuary EXHIBIT R4(f) A true copy of the Form I and Mahazar in O. R. No. 1/2022 pending on the files of Judicial Fir Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery EXHIBIT R4(g): A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.07.2022 ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE PETITIONERS PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P16 A true copy of the factory license issued by the Panchayath in favour of the petitioner, license no P: - SC-2-1828/2022-23-387 dated 22.07.2022 Exhibit P17(a) True copy of the tax receipt which shows the evidence of tax being paid by the petitioner before Thalappilly village office dated 23.05.2006 Exhibit P17 (b) True copy of the tax receipt which shows the evidence of tax being paid by the petitioner before Thalappilly village office dated 22.04.2008 Exhibit P17 (c) True copy of the tax receipt which shows the evidence of tax being paid by the petitioner before Thalappilly village office dated 01.12.2011 Exhibit P17(d) True copy of the tax receipt which shows the evidence of tax being paid by the petitioner before Thalappilly village office dated 29.04.2016 Exhibit P17(e) True copy of the tax receipt which shows the evidence of tax being paid by the petitioner before Thalappilly village office dated 27.04.2017 Exhibit P17(f) True copy of the tax receipt which shows the evidence of tax being paid by the petitioner WP(C) Nos.23631 and 23244 of 2022 20 before Thalappilly village office dated 05.07.2021 Exhibit P18(a) A true copy of possession certificate in survey no 75, 77/1, 74/3 and 76/3 issued by Thiruvilwamala Village officer dated 26.08.2006 Exhibit P18(b) A true copy of possession certificate in survey no 75, 77/1, 74/3 and 76/3 issued by Thiruvilwamala Village officer dated 13.02.2009 Exhibit P18(c) A true copy of possession certificate in survey no 75, 77/1, 74/3 and 76/3 issued by Thiruvilwamala Village officer dated 11.01.2010 Exhibit P18(d) A true copy of possession certificate in survey no 75, 77/1, 74/3 and 76/3 issued by Thiruvilwamala Village officer dated 02.12.2011 Exhibit P18(e) A true copy of possession certificate in survey no 75, 77/1, 74/3 and 76/3 issued by Thiruvilwamala Village officer dated 06.07.2021 Exhibit P19 A true copy of possession and non attachment certificate issued by Thalappilly Taluk office dated 22.06.2009 Exhibit P20 A true copy of encumbrance certificate dated 27.05.2006 Exhibit P21 A true copy of Forest Tribunal Palakkad order in 282/1976 dated 15.03.1979 Exhibit P22 A true copy of pattayam issued by land tribunal dated 20.12.1976 Exhibit P23(a) A true copy of order of the Forest Tribunal in I A 177/2022 in OA 25/2022 dated 05.09.2022 Exhibit P23(b) A true copy of Forest Tribunal Order dated 15.09.2022 in I A 177/2022 in OA 25/2022 Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/11/2022 IN IA NO: 177/2022 IN OA NO: 25/2022 OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE Exhibit P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PANCHAYAT AUTHORITIES DATED 16/06/2022 Exhibit P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVILWAMALA TO THE ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN DATED 30/5/2022 Exhibit P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVILWAMALA DATED 25.02.2022