Kerala High Court
K.Sanil Kumar vs Shaji Mathew on 9 June, 2020
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.422 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 16783/2009
[JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2015 IN WP(C) NO.16783/2009(P)]
PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER:
K.SANIL KUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O KUMARAN, KANDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.PARAVOOR,
UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 307.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR
RESPONDENT/DIRECTOR OF THE SUCCESSOR OF 6TH RESPONDENT IN WP:
SHAJI MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O. K.C.MATHEW, DIRECTOR,
POOTHOTTA RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,
IST FLOOR, ANJANA COMPLEX, KUNDANNOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 304.
BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, SC FOR KCZMA
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04-02-2020, THE COURT ON 09-06-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2020 S.Manikumar, CJ Alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 16.12.2015 in W.P. (C) No.16783 of 2009, this contempt petition has been filed. Writ petitioner approached this Court challenging illegal reclamation of paddy land on Vembanadu Kayal in Udayamperoor Panchayat, violating the Coastal Zone Regulations, by the respondents - M/s. Boutique Hotels India Limited and Lakshmi Paper Industries Limited. After due consideration, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court took note of the fact that cost of the hotel was around Rs.27.36 Crores and the project area was included in Orange category.
2. The Court also took note of the fact that reclamation/construction is unauthorisedly effected in No Development Zone to an extent of 100 metres from the High Tide Line. It was, therefore, opined that feasibility of such hotel construction and the potential threat to the environment have to be first ascertained, particularly in view of the fact that the project cost is above Rs.5 Crores. Accordingly, environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, New Delhi, in terms of CRZ Notification of 1991 was declared to be mandatory and the respondents were asked to proceed with reclamation/conversion or construction, only after obtaining the clearance. Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 3 In the same context, sanction dated 12.05.2006 issued by the Coastal Zone Management Authority was made subject to the outcome of the clearance, given by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"49. In the above circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to respondent Companies to move the 8 th and 9th respondents (in W.P.(C) No.16783 of 2009) for getting clearance and they can proceed with further steps, subject to such clearance to be obtained from the Ministry and subject to conditions/stipulations, as specified by the statutory/competent authorities in this regard. No reclamation/conversion or construction shall be effected in furtherance to the project till such time. Implementation of Ext.P9 in W.P(C) No.18742/2007, Ext.R6(h) and R6(i) in W.P.(C) No.16783 of 2009 and implementation of Ext.R9(i) sanction dated 12.05.2006 issued by the Coastal Zone Management Authority in W.P(C) 17861 of 2009 [same as Ext.R6(m) in W.P.(C) 16783 of 2009] shall be subject to the outcome of the clearance to be given by the Govt. of India as aforesaid. The parties shall bear their cost.
3. Short facts leading to this contempt petition are that, W.P.(C) No.16783 of 2009 was filed when Boutique Hotels India Ltd., and Lakshmi Paper Industries Ltd., attempted to construct a resort illegally, causing environmental hazards and damage to the eco-system. Writ court while disposing the writ petition vide judgment 16.12.2015 found that order dated 12.05.2006 issued by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority granting Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 4 clearance [Ext.R6(m)] was given to eight companies on the premise that the project cost was less than Rs.5 Crores. In fact, the cost was much beyond that and hence, respondents 6 and 7 therein have proceeded further, after obtaining clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. It was further ordered that no reclamation/conversion or construction shall be effected in furtherance to the project till such time.
4. According to the petitioner, Boutique Hotels India Ltd., respondent No. 6 before the writ court, sold the property to M/s. Poothotta Resorts Private Limited vide Sale Deed No.1550 of 2014 on the files of the office of the Sub Registrar, Maradu. Thereafter, the Company started to develop the land without obtaining clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. When the 6 th respondent commenced the work, a stop memo was issued on 20.03.2018. Challenging the stop memo, the Company filed W.P.(C) No.12425 of 2018 before the writ court, which is pending. The 6th respondent claimed that CRZ clearance was given by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority vide order dated 12.05.2006. It is pertinent to note that M/s. Poothotta Resorts Private Limited has taken steps to construct a building and an application was filed before the local authority for the same. In addition to that, in the No Development Zone, the company has made certain developments with wooden planks for using as bench and small table, garden lights, a small hut was kept, few blocks were Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 5 put to make the pathway comfortable, ornamental Chinese net was displayed and cement platform was put to install some equipment for children. Earlier, the petitioner herein filed a contempt petition against the respondent for violating the judgment dated 16.12.2015, wherein certain defects were noted. Later, the same was closed vide judgment dated 11.06.2018 [Annexure-C], by observing thus:
"According to us, the petitioner should inform the transferee about this Court's judgment which is operating against the transferor, i.e. the Boutique Hotels India Limited. Only thereafter, if the transferee refused to abide by the Court's direction applicable to the transferor, action in contempt, could be contemplated against them.
In the above circumstances, Sri.Ravi Sankar P.K., the learned counsel, prays for liberty to withdraw this case in order to put the transferee on notice and thereafter, to re-approach the Court. The liberty, as prayed for, is granted. With this order, this contempt proceedings stands closed.
If further cause of action become available thereafter, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate fresh proceeding."
5. Thereafter, the petitioner caused to issue a lawyer's notice dated 13.06.2018 (Annexure-E) informing M/s. Poothotta Resorts Private Limited about the Court's order requiring them to obtain environmental clearance before undertaking any further construction. However, the respondent did not heed to the said notice. Petitioner has referred to Annexure-H Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 6 photographs to point out that several cottages for resort were constructed next to the water line and they are in clear violation of Annexure-A judgment dated 16.12.2015.However, they proceeded with the construction.
6. Petitioner has contended that action of the respondent in challenging the nature of the land, making constructions/modifications therein and constructing buildings, in implementation of the project of constructing resort, without obtaining clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, is in deliberate and wilful violation of judgment dated 16.12.2015. Therefore, the respondent is liable to be punished under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Petitioner has further contended that since the respondent is not a party to the writ petition, the company could have purchased the property from the 6th respondent before the writ court and hence, judgment dated 16.12.2015 is binding on them. Even though they were put on notice regarding the judgment as per a lawyer's notice, they ignored the same and proceeded further with the construction.
7. Respondent has filed a reply affidavit to this contempt petition, contending that,- he proceeded with the construction of buildings in the property, which is the subject matter of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.16783 of 2009 of this Court dated 16-12-2015. The judgment referred to only directs the party respondents, granting liberty to get environmental clearance and Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 7 proceed with the construction. In the judgment, this Court made it clear that no reclamation/conversion or construction shall be effected in furtherance to the project till such time. It is at that point of time M/s. Boutique Hotels India Private Limited has obtained a building permit on 13- 10-2011 [Annexure-R1(a)] for the construction of 19831sq.mts of building and commenced construction without obtaining Environmental Clearance.
8. It is further stated that the Environment Impact Assessment Notification was amended vide S.O.3999(E), dated 09-12-2016 as per which, Environmental Clearance is required only if the built up area is above 20000 sq.mtrs. Therefore, according to the respondent, no environmental clearance is required for the construction in question. The said limit was later increased to 50000 sq. mtrs. in 2018. The respondent after purchasing the property has not decided any project. However, they decided not to take up the building project envisaged by Annexure-R1(a). In order to launch a fresh project, respondent has obtained necessary clearance from the Coastal Regulation Management Authority, who have demarcated the CRZ areas and issued a clearance for the same. The respondent has decided to keep the said area, which is near to the backwater in clean condition. A lot of locals used to trespass into the property and do a lot of unlawful activities in the said land. In order to prevent it, landscaping was done to keep it as a park so that there shall not be any trespass. The boundary walls are maintained Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 8 so that water shall not enter the property. In order to keep a watch over the land full time, security personnel were engaged. To get shelter from the heavy sunlight, temporary shelters were made using steel pipes. The roof was made with Bamboo mats and grass mats. According to the respondent, Anneuxre-H is not a building with cement or mortar. Since these activities are only installations and not constructions, building permit is not obtained.
9. It was further contended that the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 apply to "buildings" and not to gardens. Gardens are excluded from the coverage area. In addition to garden, rockery, well and well structures, plant, nursery, water-tank, swimming pool (if uncovered), platform round a tree, tank, fountain, bench and the like are also excluded from the coverage area. The site plan submitted by the petitioner shows those areas are garden and no construction is possible in this area as per the CRZ Notification, 2011, but gardening is permitted. As per Rule 10 of the KPBR, gardening is excluded. Thus, maintaining the land in question as Garden no permit is necessary. Not even development permit is necessary for such works. It is reiterated that the respondent will get all clearances and permits as required under all statutes and only after construction activities will be commenced.
10. That apart, it is further stated that at the instance of the petitioner, Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat has initiated action against the Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 9 said temporary installations. The respondent has approached this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12425 of 2018. After hearing the Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat and the Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority the writ court vide order dated 10.04.2018 [Annexure-R1(c)], permitted the respondent to proceed with the landscaping activity, but no construction. It is stated that the respondent has not violated the said order till date. The said writ petition is still pending consideration. It is reiterated that at present the respondent has not formulated any project in the land in question. As and when the said project is proposed, necessary permits, clearances and consents would be obtained from all authorities required under law. For the above reasons, the respondent sought for dismissal of the contempt petition.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
12. Material on record discloses that after filing the instant contempt case, respondent has preferred an interlocutory application for exempting personal appearance. After hearing both sides, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.03.2019, allowed the application. Thereafter, the respondent has filed an additional affidavit, denying the entire allegations and re-iterated the stand that no building constructions are undertaken by him and no reclamation or conversion works as alleged have Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 10 been done. It is also undertaken that, if it is found that such an installation requires any permission, the respondent will remove the said constructions/ installations made immediately or will obtain permission.
13. Exhibit-P1 CRZ clearance given to the Boutique Hotels India Limited by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2 before the writ court, is extracted hereunder.
"KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY"
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Sasthra Bhavan, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram-4.
No.021/ENV/06/CZMA From Director, STED and Ex-officio Additional Secretary and Member Secretary Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority To The Managing Director Boutique Hotels India Ltd.
UCO Bank Building 3rd Floor, Parliament Street New Delhi-11001.
Sir, Sub:- Construction of a resort at Udayamperoor Grama-
panchayat by M/s. Boutique Hotels India Ltd. Poothotta
-CRZ clearance-reg Ref:- Letter No.BHIL:DKB;1123 DATED August 12, 2005. The Managing Director, M/s. Boutique Hotels India Ltd. has submitted an application for constructing a resort at Poothotta in Udayamperoor Gramapanchayath of Ernakulam District for CRZ clearance.
Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 11
The proposed site lies in Poothotta on the banks of Vembanad backwaters between Kochi and Thanneermukkam. A resort is proposed to be developed by M/s. Boutique Hotels India Ltd. and the site lies in Udayamperoor Panchayath. The site is covered in map No.32A of the CZMP of the State (CZMP, 1995).
The proposed site for development and the adjoining areas are being presently covered by coconut plantation. A network of irrigation canals crisscrosses the plantation, which are connected to the backwater.
The KCZMA observed that CRZ status report prepared by CESS clearly demarcated the LTL and HTL and the proposed project is permissible in CRZ III, landward of the No Development Zone, i.e. 100 m from the High Tide Line. The KCZMA noted that construction of beach resorts/hotsl for temporary purpose is a permissible activity as per the CRZ notification. The authority decided to issue the CRZ clearance for the construction of resort, subject to the following conditions:
(a) General
(i) The construction of the structures should be undertaken as per the plans approved by the concerned local authority/local administration confirming to the existing local and cental rules and regulations including the provisions of CRZ Notification.
(ii) No Objection Certificate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board must be obtained.
(iii) The proponents have to provide all the safety norms including fire extinguishers and other equipment as per regulations.
(iv) Adequate financial provision has to be made for environmental protection measures.
(b) Specific to CRZ
(v) The minimum plot size required is 0.4 hectares and the Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 12 maximum allowed FIS is 0.33. The overall height of the building permissible is 9m and the construction should be limited to 2 floor.
(vi) Construction of swimming pool, extraction of sand and leveling for digging of sandy streches, except for structural foundation of building are not permitted.
(vii) At least a gap of 20m width will have to be provided between any two hotels/beach resorts and one gap within 500m.
(viii) Construction of building within No Development Zone i.e., 100m from the High Tide Line is not permissible.
(ix) The project proponent should not exploit ground water in the CRZ area and should provide provision for rainwater harvesting for meeting the water requirements for the resort.
(x) Any change in the project profile shall be informed to KCZMA and prior approval for the same shall be obtained.
(xi) The effluents generated from the Beach resort should not be dumped into the backwater.
(xii) The project proponent should provide necessary facilities for the visit of the officials from Coastal Zone Management Authority/Science and Technology Department for inspection of the project and its premises at any time.
(xiii) The project proponent may pay the scrutiny as applicable.
The project proponent has since remitted the scrutiny fee for Rs.5,00,000/-.
Yours faithfully Dr.K.R.S Krishnan Director, STED"
14. Exhibit-P4 notice issued by Udayamperoor Grama dated 20.03.2018 to M/s. Poothotta Resorts Private Limited is reproduced.Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 13
"NOTICE Informing Poothotta Resorts Private Limited, Anjana Complex, Kundanoor, Cochin-682304 issued by Udayamperoor Gram Panchayat - Reg.
Complaint was received that Poothotta Resorts Private Limited is making construction of building in their land in ward number 8 of Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat unauthorizedly. On making enquiries directly by the panchayat this was found to be correct. The construction that is being done without obtaining the permit from the panchayat shall be stopped immediately on the receipt of this notice and shall be intimated to the Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat within 7 days in writing. If the construction is proceeded with without obtaining permits in accordance with law the same will be removed, without giving any further notice, in accordance with Rule 20 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Building Rules, 2011 and any loss caused by the panchayat in this regard will be recovered from you.
Sd/-
Secretary, Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat"
15. Annexure-E is the lawyer notice dated 13.06.2018 issued to the Poothotta Resorts Private Limited and the respondent in this contempt petition and same is reproduced.
"NOTICE
1. That my client along with another person filed WP (C) No. 16783 of 2009 before the Honourable High Court of Kerala wherein M/s. Boutique Hotels India Ltd. and Lakshmi Paper Industries Ltd., were the respondents 6 and 7. The said WP Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 14 was filed when the Companies above named attempted to construct a resort illegally and causing environmental hazards and damage to the eco-system. The said resort was intended to be established in Re-Survey No. 795, 797/1 and 43/1 of Manakkunnam Village. The said WP was disposed of as per judgment dated 16-12-2015. It was found by the Honourable High Court that the clearance was given to the said Companies by Kerala Coastal Management Authority on the premise that the project cost was less than Rs.5 Crores, but in fact the project cost was much more than Rs. 5 Crores and hence the said Companies can proceed with further steps after obtaining clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. It was also ordered by the Honourable High Court that no reclamation/conversion or construction shall be effected in furtherance to the project till such time.
2. The 6th respondent in the said WP sold the property owned by it and which is a portion of the property that is the subject matter of the above WP to No.1 among you as per Sale Deed No. 1550 of 2014 of SRO, Maradu. No. 2 among you is the Director of No.1 among you. You have started developing the said land from 15th of March, 2018 along with the land owned by the 7th respondent in the WP and M/s. Sandune Properties Private Limited. Before so developing the said land, neither the said Companies nor you have obtained clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India as directed by the Honourable High Court.
3. You have taken steps to construct buildings for setting up the resort project and have filed application before the local authority for the said purpose. In addition, in the No Development Zone, you have constructed a shed and Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 15 foundations for constructing buildings apart from making improvements therein.
4. Please take note that your above mentioned actions are in violation of the judgment dated 16-12-2015 in WP (C) No. 16783 of 2009 of the Honourable High Court of Kerala. Hence notice is hereby given to you to desist from proceeding further in implementation of the resort project and to remove the constructions/improvements already made in violation of the judgment dated 16-12-2015 in WP(C) No. 16783 of 2009 of the Honourable High Court of Kerala within 7 days of the date of receipt of this notice, failing which my client has instructed me to proceed against you by filing petition before Honourable High Court of Kerala to take action against you under the Contempt of Court Act.
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2018.
P.K.Ravi Sankar Advocate"
16. The word "construction" defined in Webster's II New Riverside University dictionary is extracted hereunder:
"Construction. 1. a. The act or process of constructing b. The state of being constructed. c. The business of building. 2. Something constructed. 3. The way in which something is put together<a cabin of simple construction> 4. The explanation or interpretation given a particular statement. 5. a. Arrangement of words to form a meaning phrase, clause, or sentence. b. A group of words so arranged."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jnanedaya Yogam and Another v. K.K.Pankajakshy and Others reported in (1999) 9 SCC, observed thus: Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 16
"13. Learned counsel for Respondent 1 vehemently contended that acquisition for having the passage for enable the elephant and the procession to go towards the southern side for reaching the destination, cannot be considered to be for construction of any work for the Company, including the Society, in the present case as laying of passage is not construction of any work. It is not possible to agree with this contention.
14. Work of carrying out a passage would certainly amount to construction of the passage in question. Construction does not necessarily mean construction over the land which must rise above the surface of the land in all contingencies. It cannot be held that for this type of need, the acquisition proceedings would not have been resorted to at all."
18. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether there is any wilful or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent, in violating the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.16783 of 2009 dated 16.12.2015. On a perusal of the said judgment in a public interest litigation, it is categoric and clear that it was found by the Hon'ble Divison Bench that since the construction cost of the project is above Rs.5 Crores, clearance from the Ministry of Environment, New Delhi in terms of CRZ Notification of 1991 is required. The case projected by the petitioner in this contempt case is that the respondent has put up certain structures in the property in question, without securing permission from the Ministry of Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 17 Environment, the Coastal Zone Management Authority and Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat. However, the contention advanced by the respondent is that no construction activities are carried out by the petitioner and the only activity that was undertaken by the respondent is gardening the property and to put up certain temporary constructions in order to protect the property from third party intervention. It is also submitted that whatever structures put up are with temporary materials and they are used for the purpose of storing agricultural implements, manure etc. to maintain the property. Therefore, according to the respondent, no permission was required for gardening, either from the Coastal Zone Management Authority or from the Grama Panchayat.
19. Certain photographs are produced by the petitioner to show that structures are put up by the respondent. Perusal of the photographs would show that no concrete structures are put up by the respondent and whatever constructions made therein are using temporary materials like flexible and plastic sheets and no walls are constructed to the building also. The photographs also show that the property is an extensive garden land filled up with coconut trees and therefore, the contention putforth by the respondent that the constructions are put up only for the purpose of keeping the agricultural implements, manure and for accommodating the watch man would be probably correct. Anyhow, we are of the opinion that Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 18 no permanent structures are put up in the property in question in order to violate the directives in the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench.
20. Insofar as the contention putforth by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has not secured permission from the local Panchayat for putting up even temporary structures, since the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 prescribe standards for the constructions, and the nature of the construction put up by the respondent shows that the same requires permit from the Grama Panchayat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that since the constructions put up are only temporary in nature, no permission is required from the Grama Panchayat, either under the Act, 1994 or Rules, 2011.
21. Having evaluated the facts and material on record, we are of the considered view that there are no permanent constructions put up by the respondent so as to violate the directions in the judgment dated 16.12.2015. However, with respect to the permission that is required for the purpose of carrying out even temporary structure in accordance with Act, 1994 and Rules, 2011, is a matter to be considered by the Panchayat authorities after conducting due inspection in the property in question and take appropriate action, if there is any violation of the Act and the Rules specified above. We also do not think that there is any wilful disobedience or deliberate attempt Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 19 on the part of the respondent to violate the directions contained in the judgment dated 16.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No.16783 of 2009.
In view of the above, this contempt case is closed. However, we make it clear that the respective statutory authorities are at liberty to conduct due inspection in the property in question and identify whether there is any violation of the provisions of the CRZ Notifications, Environmental laws, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. If there is any violation, it is for the said authorities to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE Krj Cont. Case (C) No.422/2019 20 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2015 IN WPC 16783 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE WPC NO.12425 OF 2018
BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.6.2018
IN Z.C.O.(C) NO.28 OF 2018 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE D PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTIONS
MADE IN THE NO-DEVELOPMET ZONE.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE 13.6.2018
ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS.
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL A.D. CARD SIGNED
BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL A.D. CARD SIGNED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE H PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT STAGE OF
CONSTRUCTIONS.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
ANNEXURE-R1(A):- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 13-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
ANNEXURE-R1(B):- SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INSTALLATIONS.
ANNEXURE-R1(C):- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10.04.2018.