Kerala High Court
Jose T.J vs Ajitha on 13 March, 2019
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940
Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 IN WP(C). 976/2013
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC 976/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
28-05-2013
PETITIONER:
JOSE T.J.
S/O. JOSEPH, THERMADAM HOUSE, PATTIKAD, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
RESPONDENTS:
1 AJITHA,
W/O. T.BABU,
AGE AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
SECRETARY, PANANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANANCHERRY, THRISSUR.
2 PONNAPPAN,
AGE AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PEECHI POLICE STATION,
PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.MOHANLAL
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.TEKCHAND
R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
NIRMAL S. (PROSECUTOR)
SMT.P.S.PREETHA
SMT.RESMI G. NAIR
SRI.MANSOOR ALI
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013
2
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This Contempt of court case arises out of the interim order passed on 9.1.2013 whereby a stay of demolition of the petitioner's cinema theatre for a period of three weeks was ordered in W.P.(C)No.976 of 2013. The said interim order was then extended for a further period of two months by the court's order dated 28.5.2013. When the respondent Secretary of the Panancherry Grama Panchayath moved an application for recall of the interim order, the learned Judge while refusing the said prayer on 22.1.2013 clarified that until final orders are passed, no portion of the petitioner's building shall be demolished. It was also clarified on 20.2.2013 that the earlier stay order will not enable the petitioner to make additional constructions.
2. It is the petitioner's case in the Contempt petition that the cinema theatre building was demolished illegally between 25.6.2013 and 27.6.2013 by engaging excavators and a large number of manual labourers. The demolition process is stated to have been aided by the 2nd respondent, who was the jurisdictional Police officer of the area.
3. Although the Contempt case was preferred against Smt.Ajitha, who was the Secretary of the Panancherry Grama Panchayath and Sri.Ponnappan M.G., who was the Station House Officer of Peechi Police Station, the Contempt case initiated against Smt.Ajitha ended with the conviction of the said person on 24.7.2018, when this court, Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 3 after finding that it was necessary to commit and detain the 1 st respondent in prison, took note of the mitigating circumstances urged by counsel for the said respondent and sentenced the 1st respondent, Smt.Ajitha, to suffer imprisonment for 48 hours. Besides the said sentence, a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) was also imposed on the 1st respondent. We are informed that the 1 st respondent has since undergone the sentence and also paid the fine imposed on her by the order aforementioned.
4. The 2nd respondent, who is the contemnor before us now, has filed an affidavit wherein it is his definite stand that he did not commit any contumacious act that would attract the Contempt jurisdiction of this court. The case against the 2 nd respondent was therefore taken up for proceeding in accordance with the Rules framed by this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the following charges were framed against the 2 nd respondent, Sri.Ponnappan M.G., under Rule 14(c) of the Rules under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:-
"That you Sri.Ponnappan M.G. is the 2 nd respondent in COC 797 of 2013 filed by Shri.Jose T.J., S/o.Joseph, Thermadom House, Pattikkad, Thrissur.
That on 09.01.2013 Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) 976/13, filed by Shri.Jose T.J., Thermadom House, Pattikkad stayed the demolition of the Cinema Theatre situated in Sy. No. 401/10 of Panachery Panchayat, and the stay order were extended on 28.05.2013. The station house officer of Peechi police station was the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The stay order dated 09.01.2013 and stay extension order dated 28.05.2013 was submitted before the SHO of the Peechi Police Station by Shri.Jose T.J. Son of Sri.Joseph J Thermadan.
That you being the SHO Peechi Police Station as on 25.06.2013 was fully aware of the stay orders of the High Court of Kerala in WP (C) 976/13.
That you while holding the post of Station House Officer of the Peechi Police Station, on 25.06.2013, at about 08.30 AM accompanied by Police Force arrived in the cinema theatre building situated in Sy.No. 401/10 of Pananchery Panchayat to aid the Panchayath secretary to demolish the building. At that time Sri. Jose T.J. S/O Sri.Joseph J Thermadan, Thermadan House, Pattikad, Thrissur again handed over the interim order of the High Court of Kerala in WPC 976 of 2013 to you and, you accepted the orders.Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 4
That you, in total violation of the order dated 09.01.2013 in WP (C)976/13 of the High Court order aided the Secretary of Pananchery Panchayath and others for the demolition of the Cinema Theatre building situated in Sy.No.401/10 of Pananchery Panchayath on 25.06.2013, 26.06.2013 & 27.06.2013.
Your Conduct of disobeying of the orders of the High Court is deliberate and wilful. The aiding and granting of Police Protection for the demolition of the building situated in Sy.No.402/10 of Pananchery Panchayath on 25.06.2013, 26.06.2013 & 27.06.2013 amount to contempt of Court.
After considering your reply to the contempt notice and hearing your argument in the contempt matter, High Court is prima facie satisfied that you have committed Contempt of Court and liable to be prosecuted and punished for violating the orders of the High Court of Kerala in WPC 976 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act."
5. After reading of the aforesaid charge to the 2 nd respondent, who was present in person, he was asked whether he pleads guilty to the said charges or not. The response of the 2nd respondent was that he does not plead guilty to the charges. Under the said circumstances, the case was adjourned to 15.10.2018 for proceeding with the trial. By an order dated 15.10.2018, we appointed Adv.S.Nirmal, as counsel to conduct the prosecution in terms of Rule 15 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules. The procedure followed for the trial was the same as adopted for summary trial under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the extent practical, as contemplated under the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules. Accordingly, we proceeded to hear the prosecution as also take all evidence in support of the prosecution and thereafter heard the accused and took all evidence as produced by the accused in defense.
6. On the side of the prosecution, four witnesses were examined and the documents P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the defense, the Advocate Commissioner Sri.S.Kannan was examined and no documents were marked. The Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 5 witnesses called by the prosecution tendered their evidence in chief through affidavits and the defense cross-examined the said witnesses. The prosecution thereafter re- examined some of the witnesses. The 2 nd respondent/accused did not enter the witnesses box and give any evidence and the witness called by the defense was subjected to examination on the contents of his commission report. We might also note in this connection that on conclusion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, we proceeded to examine the accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the extent applicable under these proceedings. Question Nos.1 to 7 were put to him in vernacular by this court, and the accused answered the same, and the same was recorded. The accused was thereafter asked whether he had anything more to say, and in reply, he said he had nothing more to add, save what he has already sworn to in the written statement submitted to the questionnaire furnished to him. The averments in the said written statement were taken as forming part of the deposition of the accused in the proceedings under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The evidence in the matter was closed on 25.2.2019. The case was posted for arguments on 8.3.2019 and 13.3.2019 when we heard detailed arguments from the Prosecutor Sri.S.Nirmal and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jaju Babu assisted by Sri.Brijesh Mohan on behalf of the accused.
7. The learned counsel for prosecution Sri.S.Nirmal would take us through the charges framed against the 2 nd respondent, Sri.Ponnappan M.G., who assumed charge as a Station House Officer at Peechi Police Station on 15.5.2013. He would refer to the stay order passed by this court on 9.1.2013, which was operational for a period of three weeks. It is stated that although the said order was extended from time to time, the last extension was on 28.5.2013 and it is in breach of the last mentioned order, that the Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 6 demolition of the cinema theatre took place. The said demolition is stated to have occurred between 25.6.2013 and 27.6.2013. The prosecution relies on the depositions of PW1 to PW4 to suggest that the copy of the interim order dated 28.5.2013 was served on the 2nd respondent in person and therefore, the 2nd respondent was in breach of the directions of this court, that stayed the demolition, when he aided the 1 st respondent in carrying out the demolition of the cinema theatre. Reliance was placed on Rule 151 of the High Court Rules read with Rule 158 thereof, to establish that the interim order dated 9.1.2013 was communicated to the Station House Officer, Peechi Police Station immediately thereafter, and the communication is proved through the letter dated 19.1.2013 of the Advocate General's office, which communicated the order to the Station House Officer, Peechi Police Station. It is the specific stand of the Prosecutor Sri.S.Nirmal that, although the 2 nd respondent assumed charge as Station House Officer only subsequently, on 15.5.2013, he was to be attributed knowledge not only of the stay order dated 9.1.2013, which was communicated to his office while the earlier incumbent was in charge, but he ought to have enquired, in the normal course of duty, as to whether any subsequent order extending the earlier order had been passed by this court. Relying on this constructive knowledge attributable to the 2 nd respondent, it is the contention of Sri.S.Nirmal that the 2 nd respondent could not effectively deny that he had acted in contravention of the stay order of this court while aiding the 1st respondent in the demolition of the cinema theatre. In the alternative, it is contended that, even if there was no actual communication of the order dated 28.5.2013 of this court to the 2nd respondent, the said order being in the nature of a prohibitive order, and the 2 nd respondent having been a party in the writ petition before this court, as the 3 rd respondent therein, could not deny knowledge of the order passed on 28.5.2013. It is the case of the prosecution therefore that viewed from any angle, Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 7 the 2nd respondent could not escape the clutches of the contempt jurisdiction of this court in that, he had wilfully disobeyed the directions of this court in the order dated 28.5.2013, by aiding the 1st respondent in the demolition of the cinema theatre.
8. Refuting the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jaju Babu would take us through the contempt petition itself to suggest that in the contempt petition there is no mention of any positive act or omission on the part of the 2nd respondent, suggestive of a charge of contumacious action by the 2 nd respondent in breach of the directions issued by this court on 9.1.2013 as extended on 28.5.2013. It is pointed out that the main charge in the contempt proceedings was against the 1st respondent, who has since been convicted and sentenced as already noticed. In defense of the 2 nd respondent, it is stated that he joined the Peechi Police Station only on 15.5.2013 and he was unaware of the orders passed by this court on 9.1.2013 and 28.5.2013. His ignorance is stated to be on account of there being no entry in the register of the Police Station pointing to the existence of the aforesaid orders. The 2nd respondent has also denied the averments of the petitioner that these orders were personally served on him, in the counter affidavit filed in the contempt case. The learned Senior Counsel would also point to certain inconsistencies in the depositions of PW1, PW2 and PW3 in that while PW1 states that it was by 9 A.M. on 25.6.2013 that the 2nd respondent came to the site in connection with the demolition activities, PW2 and PW3, in their depositions, clearly state that the 2 nd respondent had arrived at the site by 6 A.M. Reference is also made to the Commissioner's report (Ext.P5) to suggest that the demolition actually took place only on 26.6.2013 and not on 25.6.2013, as alleged by the prosecution. Sri.S.Nirmal, the learned Prosecutor would counter the said alleged discrepancies pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 8 for the defense, by clarifying that the statement of PW1 with regard to the time at which the 2nd respondent arrived at the site was made in connection with the actual demolition activities, whereas the statements of PW2 and PW3 were only suggestive of the time the 2nd respondent and demolition team came to the site prior to the commencement of demolition activities. Referring to the communication issued by the Secretary of the Panchayath, it is stated that the Secretary had called for assembly of the officers concerned at 5 A.M. at her office and this would indicate that the preparatory activities for demolition started quite early in the morning on 25.6.2013. The reference by the learned Senior Counsel to the Commissioner's report, and the inferences drawn therefrom, are also countered by referring to later paragraphs in the Commissioner's report which indicate that some part of the demolition actually took place on 25.6.2013 itself and it is only the remaining part of the demolition that took place on 26.6.2013 and 27.6.2013.
9. On considering the rival submissions and depositions of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution and the defense, and taking note of the documents marked in evidence, we find that the actual service of the order dated 28.5.2013 on the 2 nd respondent is not established through any cogent evidence. While it may be a fact that there is a suggestion to that effect forthcoming from the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3 in evidence, the fact remains that the said statements are not corroborated by any documentary evidence. It may have been possible to attribute constructive knowledge to the 2 nd respondent since he was the 3 rd respondent in the writ petition in which the interim orders were passed. We find, however, that in the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the 2 nd respondent (the 3rd respondent in the writ petition) was actually represented through the Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 9 Government Pleader when the interim order dated 28.5.2013 was passed. Although there is evidence to show that there was a communication of the earlier order dated 9.1.2013 to the Station House Officer of the Peechi Police Station through the office of the Advocate General, we cannot lose sight of the fact that during the relevant time, when the first order was communicated, the 2 nd respondent was not posted as the Station House Officer in Peechi Police Station. As already noted earlier, he joined the Peechi Police Station only on 15.5.2013. The first order which may have been available in the Police Station would have indicated that the order was to enure for a period of three weeks from 9.1.2013. The said period having expired well before the 2 nd respondent joined the Police Station (15.5.2013), and there being nothing on record to suggest that the 2nd respondent had any knowledge of the subsequent orders extending the period of earlier order, we cannot attribute any constructive knowledge of the order dated 28.5.2013 to the 2nd respondent.
10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The documents numbered as C5 and C7 in Ext.P5 report of the Commissioner, that was marked in evidence, would reveal that the Secretary of the Panancherry Grama Panchayath had addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Police, Thrissur on 21.6.2013, referring to an order of the High Court in W.P.(C)No.976 of 2013 as also the proceedings dated 21.6.2013 of the Secretary of the Panchayath, and seeking the assistance of the police in connection with the demolition activities contemplated in respect of the cinema theatre belonging to the writ petitioner. Acting on the said letter, the Commissioner of Police, Thrissur is seen to have made an endorsement thereon to the Circle Inspector of Police, Ollur for necessary action. It is pursuant to the instructions thereafter sent from the office of the Circle Inspector of Police, Ollur that the 2 nd respondent proceeded to Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 10 render assistance to the 1st respondent, Secretary of the Panancherry Grama Panchayath, in the demolition activities. On a perusal of C5 and C7 documents, forming part of Ext.P5 document marked in evidence, it is discernible that the Commissioner of Police, Thrissur was possibly misled by the communication received by him from the Secretary of the Panancherry Grama Panchayath into believing that the reference to the order of the High Court in W.P.(C)No.976 of 2013 made therein was to an order directing police protection for the demolition activities proposed by the Secretary of the Panchayath. At any rate, the Commissioner of Police, Thrissur, having issued directions for necessary action in connection with the request of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath, and the same having been communicated to the subordinate officers through the Circle Inspector of Police, Ollur, the 2 nd respondent, who was the Station House Officer of Peechi Police Station, situated very near to the site of demolition, could not, as a subordinate officer, have been expected to question the directions issued by the Commissioner of Police. Coupled with the finding rendered above with regard to the absence of knowledge of the interim order dated 28.5.2013 of this court, we find that the 2nd respondent cannot be seen as having wilfully violated any direction issued from this court. In this connection, we must also take note of the submission of Sri.S.Nirmal, relying on the Oswald's Contempt of Court, III Edition as also the decision in Hoshiar Singh and Another v. Gurbachan Singh and Others (AIR 1962 SC 1089) that prohibitory orders need not be served on the officer concerned so long as it is proved that he has notice of the order aliunde as by telegram or newspaper report or otherwise. While we do not doubt the settled proposition as noticed by the above authorities, we find that in the instant case, the 2 nd respondent, to be attributed with any knowledge of the interim order dated 28.5.2013, had to be represented in court in the writ proceedings where he was arrayed as the 3 rd respondent. Inasmuch as the Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 11 interim order itself discloses that the 2 nd respondent was not so represented in the proceedings in the writ petition on the date when the interim order was passed, and it is not even otherwise independently established that he was represented by a Government Pleader in the writ proceedings when the order was passed, we are of the view that the aforesaid authority/decision will not come to the aid of the Prosecutor in establishing knowledge of the interim order, by the 2 nd respondent.
In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no contumacious conduct on the part of the 2 nd respondent and the charges framed against the 2nd respondent in this Contempt proceedings are not established. We, therefore, order for closure of the Contempt case as against the 2 nd respondent by absolving him of the charges. Before parting with this case, we must record our appreciation for the erudite efforts of the Prosecutor Sri.S.Nirmal, in marshalling the evidence and laying out the relevant legal provisions, so as to assist us in arriving at what we believe is the correct legal finding in these proceedings.
Sd/-
Hrishikesh Roy, Chief Justice Sd/-
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge vpv Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 12 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 976/13 DATED 9.1.2013.
ANNEXURE A2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.5.2013 EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF STAY.
ANNEXURE A3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DEMOLITION OF THE PETITIONERS BUILDING.
ANNEXURE A5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT DATED 26.6.2013, PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWSPAPER.
ANNEXURE A6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2012.
ANNEXURE A7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2012.
ANNEXURE A8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.01.2013.
ANNEXURE A9: PHOTOCOPY OF THE UNDATED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY.
ANNEXURE A10: PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.1.13 IN WPC NO.2117/13.
ANNEXURE A11: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.1.2013.
ANNEXURE A12: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DT.25.1.2013 ANNEXURE A13: PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECRETARY IN WPC NO.2117/13 DTD.3.2.13.
ANNEXURE A14: PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.2117/13 DATED 20.2.2013.
ANNEXURE A15: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENCE ISSUED TO THE CINEMA THEATRE CUM AUDITORIUM DURING 2004.
ANNEXURE A16: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING AFTER DEMOLITION.
ANNEXURE A17: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING AFTER DEMOLITION.
ANNEXURE A18: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 3.6.2013. ANNEXURE A19: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.6.2013.
Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 201313 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION DTD.21.6.2013.
ANNEXURE R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.27.12.2012 OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DTD.27.12.2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.1.1.2013 ADDRESSED TO THE SI OF POLICE.
ANNEXURE R1(e): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.1.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R1(f): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION ADDRESSED TO THE SI OF POLICE.
ANNEXURE R1(g): TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R1(h): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.9.1.2013 IN WPC NO.976 OF 2013.
ANNEXURE R1(i): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.22.1.2013 IN WPC NO.2117 OF 2013.
ANNEXURE R1(j): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 25.1.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R1(k): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 3.2.2013 ALONG WITH PETITION TO VACATE INTERIM ORDER.
ANNEXURE R1(l): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.2.2013 IN WPC NO.9776 OF 2013.
ANNEXURE R1(m): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 11.4.2013 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE.
ANNEXURE R1(n): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.6.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R1(o): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.6.2013 RECEIVED FROM THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R1(p): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 246.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R2(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B3-14374/13 DATED 21.6.2013.Con.Case(C).No. 797 of 2013 14
COMMISSIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE C1: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL PROPOSING INSPECTION.
ANNEXURE C2: A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK MEMO ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER DATED 28.6.2013.
ANNEXURE C3 SERIES:TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING AND PROPERTY.
ANNEXURE C4: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B3-14374/13, DATED 24.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ORDERING DEMOLITION OF UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE C5: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION/ASSISTANCE FOR DEMOLITION.
ANNEXURE C6&C6(a):TRUE COPIES OF COMMUNICATIONS DATED 24.6.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSE BOARD, MANNUTHI AND ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PATTIKKAD.
ANNEXURE C7: A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND FORWARDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE C8: A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.A1-12(12), DATED 24.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE C9: A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF PANANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 28.6.2013.
ANNEXURE C10 SERIES: A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR, DECISION OF THE SECRETARY, COPY OF THE INWARD AND VOUCHER EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF AMOUNT.
/TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE