Krishnan Namboodiri vs The Commissioner on 20 June, 2025

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Krishnan Namboodiri vs The Commissioner on 20 June, 2025

The petitioners, who are stated to be the hereditary trustees of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple, Vylathoor, in Chavakkad Taluk, jointly owned by four families, viz., Kolathappally Mana, Kadalayi Mana, Payyoor Mana and Puthuvaay Mana, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to handover the management and administration of the said temple to the petitioners, who are the hereditary trustees. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate action for the recovery of the entire amount collected by the 5 th respondent Kshethra Punarudharana Committee (Temple Renovation Committee) from general public and the devotees under the guise of renovation of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple and to direct the 5th respondent Committee to produce the details of the fund collected in the name of Punarudharanam (renovation) of the temple and Sivarathri Maholsavam; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to renovate Sree WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:44659 Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple under the leadership of the petitioners, who are the hereditary trustees.

2. On 25.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, State of Kerala represented by the Special Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department and the Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Malabar Devaswom Board Audit were suo motu impleaded as additional respondents 6 and 7. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3 and the Senior Government Pleader for additional respondents 6 and 7. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 and 5, returnable by 01.04.2025. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to get specific instructions with reference to Exts.P4 and P8 notices alleged to have been published by the 5th respondent Punarudharana Committee for collecting money from devotees of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple, in which the name of the said Committee is mentioned.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 31.05.2025 of the 1 st WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:44659 respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. Paragraphs 3 to 15 of that counter affidavit read thus:

"3. It is submitted that, Sree Trikanamuku Mahadeva Temple is a religious institution within the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and hence the provisions of the said Act, the Rules framed there under and the scheme of administration in O.A.No.11 of 1956 dated 17.05.1956 governs the temple administration. The immediate supervisory control of the temple is vested with the Area Committee of Malabar Devaswom Board, of Malappuram Division as provided in the Act.

4. It is submitted that the right of administration of the temple had been vested with the family of Hereditary Trustees. There were 3 hereditary trustees, the Senior most persons from the families namely Kolathappullymana of Kaloor, Kaladalayi Mana of Vylathur and Payyoor mana of Koonammooly. There is no provision in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, to prohibit the Trustees from functioning in the temple, for due discharge of the duties connected with the administration.

5. In fact, the hereditary trustees had not been habitually involved in the temple administration, for about decades now, and an Executive Officer and two non-hereditary trustees were appointed, when the temple was under the supervisory control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (Admn) Department.

6. While so, the 1st petitioner had intermittently attended in the Trustee Board meetings during 2014-15. When two non-

 WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025               7                2025:KER:44659


     hereditary trustees were         appointed as per       order   in

A4.3814/2014 dated 19.06.2019, the devotees, had raised grave allegations that the two persons namely Madhavan Kutty. T.M. and Vasu. A.M were being appointed continuously and the Chairman namely T.M Madhavan Kutty, the chairman then, along with his accomplice, namely Vasu AM, had been misusing the temple and misappropriating the temple funds, and the amount procured by excavating soil even from the holy temple pond were misappropriated without accounting the income thereon, coming to about Ten lakhs Rupees. While so, the Hereditary Trustees had not been participating in the temple administration. So even after the expiry of the term, Sree T.M. Madhavankutty, had been continuing at the helm of affairs illegally.

7. It is submitted that earlier, as per order No.A4.2790 2004 dated 07.11.2005, 4 non-hereditary trustees were appointed, while so Kunju Namboodiri of Kolathoopully Mana had been attending intermittently. It was made known that 3 Hereditary Trustees were existing and two non-hereditary trustees namely T.M Madhavan kutty and M.A Vasu were appointed as per Order No. 4.26/2009 dated 06.02.2010. Further the Order No.A4.3814/2014 dated 19.06.2019, appointing TM Madhavankutty and M.A Vasu was set aside by the Order dated 01.02.2022 of the 1st respondent.

8. It is submitted that the Executive Officer was appointed two decades back and non-hereditary trustees were appointed continuously. The Hereditary Trustees were reframing from discharging their duties on their own and as they had abandoned the temple, their right came to be WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:44659 extinct due to non-exercise of it. Whether the petitioners 2 and 3 were the senior most persons of the family of Kadalay Mana and Payyoor Mana is not known to the Board, since the death of the predecessor and succession of the petitioners 2 and 3 were not reported to the authorities under the Act.

9. So the appointment of the Executive Officer and the appointment of non-Hereditary Trustees were continuous and the Hereditary Trustees had not challenged those orders since they were not interested in participating in the temple administration. Now it seems that the Hereditary Trustees had the convenience to participate in the temple administration and without agitating the same before the authorities under the Act, has filed the above Writ Petition deliberately hiding the grave declension occurred on the part of the Petitioners 1 to 3, in the due discharge of their duties as Hereditary Trustees for decades.

10. As far as the cause of action mentioned in the Writ Petition that the alleged collection of funds is concerned, the renovation committee for construction of office and toilet was approved as per order in A4.4944/2022 dated 11.01.2023 subject to the conditions in the circular HR5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007. Sri. Nandakumar T.M. is the President and 5th respondent is the Secretary of the Committee.

11. It is submitted that Sree P. Aravindakshan was elected as the President and the Committee was again approved under Order vide A4.1891/2024/MDB/K Dis dated 25.05.2024, and the 5th respondent is the Secretary therein.

WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:44659 The plan and estimate of the work was approved by Ext.P3.

12. The construction of Office Building and the Sreekovil of Sub Deities, is in its initial stage and Rs.90,855/- (Rupees Ninety thousand eight hundred and fifty five only) and Rs.65,382/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand three hundred and eighty two only) has been spent for the foundation work and the same was reported to be from the personal funds of Sri.T.M.Nandakumar, Sree. P.Aravindakshan, the President and Sree Kochan, another member of the Committee, for which no receipts were printed and no collection was made from the public in any manner, and hence no bank account was also opened in that regard. There is no evidence for collection of funds from the public.

13. It is submitted that, Ext.P8 is merely a notice regarding celebration of Sivarathri festival in which, the phone numbers were merely shown for enquiry and there is no allegation that the said numbers were connected with G.pay or any amount were collected through any account either. So Ext.P3 to P8 are irrelevant as far as the allegation of fund collection are concerned. In Ext.P1, only the name of the temple is mentioned. As far as Hereditary Trusteeship is concerned, the entries in section 25 of the register is the authenticated recordical evidence to prove it.

14. The Hereditary Trustees being vested with the right of administration, they are bound to prepare and obtain approval u/s 25(2) of the Act. So Ext P1 is irrelevant as far as the right of claim of Hereditary Trusteeship, since the same was obtained in recent years in 2023 and 2024. Admittedly, 3 families namely Kolappully Mana, Kadalayi WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:44659 Mana and Payyoor Mana, in order to make entries of the names as the ooralan of the temple, it had to be on the entitlement, as the next person in the line of succession under Section 47 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The temple being within the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the entries of the name of the ooralan had to be the persons who had lawfully succeeded in the temple administration as Trustee u/s 47 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

15. If at all there was any such hereditary trusteeship claim on valid evidences, in difference with the prevailing number of the vested right of Hereditary families, the dispute should be settled u/s 57(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. So the family of Puthuvamanakkal the 2nd entry in Ext P1(b) and (c), has to prove his claim before the Deputy Commissioner u/s 57(b)."

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent Executive Officer, the learned Senior Government Pleader for additional respondents 6 and 7 and also the learned counsel for the additional 8th respondent Temple Renovation Committee. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 5th respondent.

5. The main relief sought for in this wit petition is a writ WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:44659 of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to hand over the management and administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple to the petitioners, who are the hereditary trustees of that temple.

6. The averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board would show that Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple is a religious institution within the purview of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 and the administration of the temple is governed by the Scheme formulated by the order dated 17.05.1956 in O.A.No.11 of 1956. The immediate supervisory control of the temple is vested with the Area Committee of Malabar Devaswom Board, Malappuram Division.

7. Though the case of the petitioners is that Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple is jointly by four families, namely, Kolathappally Mana, Kadalayi Mana, Payyoor Mana and Puthuvaay Mana, and the petitioners are the hereditary trustees of the temple, the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board is that the right of administration of the temple is vested with three WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:44659 families, namely, Kolathappally Mana of Kaloor, Kadalayi Mana of Vylathur and Payyoor Mana of Koonamooly. In fact, the hereditary trustees had not been habitually involved in the temple administration for about a decade, and the Executive Officer and two non-hereditary trustees were appointed when the temple was under the supervisory control of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department. While so, the 1st petitioner had intermittently attended the meeting of the Trustee Board during 2014-15. When two non-hereditary trustees were appointed as per the order dated 19.06.2019, the devotees raised grave allegations against them, as stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. At that time, the hereditary trustees were not participating in the temple administration. The Executive Officer was appointed in the temple two decades back and the non-hereditary trustees are also being appointed continuously. Whether petitioners 2 and 3 are the seniormost persons in the family of Kadalayi Mana and Payyoor Mana are not known to the Malabar Devaswom Board, since the death of their predecessor and succession were not reported to the authorities under the Act.

8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:44659 record and also the submissions made at the Bar on the above aspect, we notice that the claim of the petitioners that the management and administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple has to be handed over to them, since they are the hereditary trustees of the temple has to be decided by the competent authority in the 2nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, since the claim of petitioners 2 to 4 that they are hereditary trustees of the temple is disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Commissioner. In the said counter affidavit, there is no dispute regarding the entitlement of the 1 st petitioner. However, in the case of petitioners 2 and 3 their entitlement is disputed by contending that the death of their predecessors and succession of petitioners 2 and 3 as the seniormost member of the respective families were not reported to the authorities under the Act.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners shall submit a proper request before the 2 nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board to hand over the management and administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple, producing therewith documents to substantiate WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:44659 the fact that petitioners 2 and 3 are the seniormost person of Kadalayi Mana and Payyoor Mana and that the 5th petitioner is the seniormost member of Puthuvaayi Mana, who is also entitled to be one among the hereditary trustees of the said temple.

10. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board is that the administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple for the last two decades is by a Trustee Board consisting of non-hereditary trustees and also an Executive Officer, since the hereditary trustees of the temple were not involved in the administration of the temple and they had abandoned the temple. Therefore, it was found necessary to constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of non-hereditary trustees for the administration of the temple.

11. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out the law laid down by this Court in P.V. Sankaran and others v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2025 KHC OnLine 89].

12. Section 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, deals with Trustees and their number and term of office. As per sub-section (1) of Section 39, WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:44659 where a religious institution included in the list published under Section 38 or over which no Area Committee has jurisdiction, has no hereditary trustee, the Commissioner shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of not less than three and not more than five persons appointed by him. As per sub-section (2) of Section 39, where, in the case of any such institution having a hereditary trustee or trustees; the Commissioner after notice to such trustee or trustees, and after such enquiry as he deems adequate, considers for reasons to be recorded, that the affairs of the institution are not, and are not likely to be, properly managed by the hereditary trustee or trustees, the Commissioner may, by order appoint such number of non-hereditary trustees as he thinks necessary, so however that the total number of trustees does not exceed five. As per sub-section (3) of Section 39, every trustee appointed under sub-section (1) and subject to the result of an application, if any, filed under sub-section (4) every non- hereditary trustee appointed under sub-section (2) shall hold office for a term of two years, unless in the meanwhile the trustee is removed or dismissed or his resignation is accepted by the Commissioner or he otherwise ceases to be a trustee.

WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:44659

13. As per sub-section (4) of Section 39 of the Act, where the Commissioner by order appoints a non-hereditary trustee or trustees the hereditary trustee or trustees may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, file an application to the court to set aside or modify such order. As per sub-section (5) of Section 39, where a vacancy arises in the office of a non-hereditary trustee appointed under sub-section (2) the Commissioner shall not fill up such a vacancy unless, for reasons to be recorded, he considers it necessary to do so. A non-hereditary trustee appointed in the vacancy shall be deemed to have been appointed under sub- section (2), and the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly.

14. Section 40 of the Act deals with the Chairman. As per sub-section (1) of Section 40, in the case of a religious institution for which a Board of Trustees is constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 39, the Board shall elect one of its members to be its Chairman. As per sub-section (2) of Section 40, in the case of any other religious institution having more than one trustee, the trustees of such institution shall elect one of their members to be the Chairman. As per sub-section (3) of Section 40, a Chairman WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:44659 elected under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall hold office for such period as may be prescribed.

15. Section 41 of the Act deals with the power of the Area Committee to appoint Trustees. As per sub-section (1) of Section 41, in the case of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, the Area Committee shall have the same power to appoint trustees as is vested in the Commissioner in the case of a religious institution referred to in Section 39. As per the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 41, the Area Committee may, in the case of any institution which has no hereditary trustee, appoint a single trustee. As per sub-section (2) of Section 41, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 39 and Section 40 shall apply to the trustee or trustees appointed, or the Board of Trustees constituted, by the Area Committee as they apply in relation to the trustee or trustees appointed, or the Board of trustees constituted, by the Commissioner.

16. As per Section 42 of the Act, the power to appoint trustees under Section 39 or Section 41 shall be exercisable notwithstanding that the scheme, if any, settled, or deemed under this Act to have been settled for the institution contains provisions WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:44659 to the contrary.

17. In P.V. Sankaran [2025 KHC OnLine 89], a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party noticed that a reading of the provisions contained in Sections 39 and 41 of the Act makes it explicitly clear that, subsection (1) of Section 39 empowers the Commissioner to constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of not less than three and not more than five persons appointed by him, in a religious institution included in the list published under Section 38 or over which no Area Committee has jurisdiction, which has no hereditary trustee. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 empowers the Commissioner, by order to appoint such number of non-hereditary trustees as he thinks necessary, not exceeding five, in any such institution having a hereditary trustee or trustees, if the Commissioner after notice to such trustee or trustees, and after such enquiry as he deems adequate, considers for reasons to be recorded, that the affairs of the institution are not, and are not likely to be, properly managed by the hereditary trustee or trustees. Sub-section (3) of Section 39 deals with the term of office of the trustees appointed under subsections (1) and (2) of WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:44659 Section 39 of the Act. The provisions under sub-section (5) of Section 39 of the Act makes it explicitly clear that where a vacancy arises in the office of a non-hereditary trustee appointed under sub-section (2) the Commissioner shall not fill up such a vacancy unless, for reasons to be recorded, he considers it necessary to do so. As per sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Act, in the case of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, the Area Committee shall have the same power to appoint trustees as is vested in the Commissioner in the case of a religious institution referred to in Section 39.

18. In P.V. Sankaran [2025 KHC OnLine 89] it was held that in view of the provisions contained in Sections 39 and 41 of the Act, any appointment of non-hereditary trustees in a religious institution having hereditary trustee or trustees, by the Commissioner invoking the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, or by the concerned Area Committee invoking the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Act, has to be made after notice to such trustee or trustees, after such enquiry as he deems adequate and for reasons to be recorded that the affairs of the religious institution are not, and WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:44659 are not likely to be, properly managed by the hereditary trustee or trustees. For filling up the vacancy in the office of non- hereditary trustees appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, the Commissioner or the Area Committee, as the case may be, has to record reasons, as per the mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 39, read with sub-section (1) of Section 41. Therefore, neither the Commissioner nor the Area Committee can issue an order filling up the vacancy of non-hereditary trustees appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, in a religious institution having hereditary trustee or trustees, as a routine order, in continuation of the earlier order appointing non- hereditary trustees in that religious institution.

19. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would submit that the question as to whether the vacancy in the office of the non-hereditary trustees appointed under sub- section (2) of Section 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 has to be filled up, will be decided by the Area Committee, Malappuram Division, as per the mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 39, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in P.V. Sankaran [2025 KHC OnLine WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:44659 89], with notice to the hereditary trustees of the said temple, before taking a decision to issue fresh notification inviting application for appointment of non-hereditary trustees.

20. Regarding collection of funds by the additional 8th respondent Temple Renovation Committee, the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, is that the Renovation Committee for construction of office and toilet was approved as per order in A4.4944/2022 dated 11.01.2023, subject to the conditions in Circular No.HR5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007 issued by the Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department. The plan and estimate of the work were approved by Ext.P3 order dated 04.02.2023 of the 1st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. The construction of office building and Sreekovil of Sub Deities is in its initial stage. The amount of Rs.90,855/- and Rs.65,382/- spent towards foundation work are reported to be from the personal funds of the President and a member of the Renovation Committee, for which no receipts were printed, and no collection was made from the public. Hence no bank account was opened in WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:44659 the name of the Renovation Committee. It is also stated that there is no evidence regarding collection of funds from the public and that Ext.P8 is only a notice regarding Sivarathri festival, in which the phone numbers were shown for enquiry. There is no allegation that the said phone numbers were connected with GPay or that amounts were collected through any accounts.

21. We do not propose to consider the rival contentions on the above aspect in these proceedings. It is for the petitioners to submit a proper complaint before the 1st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, along with supporting materials and pursue that complaint in accordance with law.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the competent authority in the 2nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board with a proper request to hand over the management and administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple, producing therewith documents to substantiate the fact that petitioners 2 and 3 are the seniormost persons of Kadalayi Mana and Payyoor Mana. The claim of the 5th petitioner that he is the seniormost member of Puthuvaay Mana, who is also entitled to be WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 23 2025:KER:44659 one among the hereditary trustees of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple, has to be established in accordance with law, by invoking the provisions under Section 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board that the question as to whether the vacancy in the office of the non-hereditary trustees appointed under sub- section (2) of Section 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 has to be filled up, will be decided by the Area Committee, Malappuram Division, as per the mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 39, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in P.V. Sankaran [2025 KHC OnLine 89], with notice to the hereditary trustees of the said temple, before taking a decision to issue fresh notification inviting application for appointment of non-hereditary trustees of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple, is recorded. In case there is any illegal collection of money from the devotees and public by the additional 8th respondent Temple Renovation Committee, it is for the petitioners to submit a proper complaint before the 1 st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, along with WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 24 2025:KER:44659 supporting materials and pursue that complaint in accordance with law.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-

 WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025         25               2025:KER:44659



                  APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11370/2025

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1           TRUE COPY OF THE BTR RECEIPT PERTAINING TO
                     THE TEMPLE PROPERTY IN SY NO 72/10 OF
                     VYLATHUR VILLAGE DT 02/12/2023.
Exhibit P1(a)        TRUE COPY OF THE BTR RECEIPT PERTAINING TO
                     THE TEMPLE PROPERTY IN SY NO 72/3 OF VYLATHUR
                     VILLAGE DT 29/07/2024
Exhibit P1(b)        TRUE COPY OF THE BTR RECEIPT PERTAINING TO
                     THE TEMPLE PROPERTY IN SY NO 67/1 OF VYLATHUR
                     VILLAGE DT 17/08/2024
Exhibit P2           TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO A4-3814/2014/MDB DT
                     19/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3           TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO H8-6149/2022/MDB
                     DT 04.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4           TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH
                     RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5           TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17/11/2023 ISSUED
                     BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5(a)        TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17/11/2023 ISSUED
                     BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6           TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DT 18/11/2023
                     ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, VADAKKEKKAD GRAMA
                     PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P7           TRUE   COPY  OF   ORDER   NO   400668/BFMC03/

GPO/2023/6693/(8) DT 10/07/2024 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, VADAKKEKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court