Kerala High Court
Rafeeque.N.A vs Union Of India on 3 December, 2020
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, T.R.Ravi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
W.P(C).No.34963 OF 2019(U)
PETITIONER/S:
1 RAFEEQUE.N.A., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM,
NADUVEETTIL HOUSE, CHERAMON MALIK NAGAR,
METHALA P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT
2 NASAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL GAFOOR,
PADIYATH HOUSE, P.O. KOTTAPURAM, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.K.MUHAMMED THOYYIB
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
5 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD (HO),
VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.
6 THE DIRECTOR,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, SUNDARA VILASAM,
KOTTARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 2 -
15013 of 2020
7 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, THRISSUR, PIN-680 021.
8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 003.
9 THE WAKF INSPECTOR,
KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR-680 021.
10 THE SECRETARY,
CHERAMAN JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE,
CHERAMAN MALIK NAGAR, KODUNGALLUR-680 664.
11 THE PRESIDENT,
CHERAMAN JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE,
CHERAMAN MALIK NAGAR, KODUNGALLUR-680 664.
12 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,
THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNERS OFFICE,
KOKKALA, THRISSUR-680 021
13 THE KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, KODUNGALLUR-680 664.
14 INKEL LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DOOR NO.7/473ZA-5 & 6,
2ND FLOOR, AJIYAL COMPLEX, KAKKANAD,
COCHIN, KERALA,PIN-682 030
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADDL.S.G. OF INDIA.
R2-R4, R6, R8, R12 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SC, WAQF BOARD.
R10 & R11 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL.
R10 & R11 BY ADV. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
R13 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SC, KODUNGALOOR
MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).15013/2020(B), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 3 -
15013 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
WP(C).No.15013 OF 2020(B)
PETITIONER/S:
HAJI A.K.NAZEER, AGED 59 YEARS,
ALMANA HOUSE, AAK GARDENS, NEDUMBASSERY P.O.,
PARAMBAYAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS,
DIRECTORATE OF CULTURE, ANANTHAVILASAM PALACE,
FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
2 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY,
REPRESENTED BY TITS DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, SUNDARAVILASOM PALACE,
FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
3 DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680 003.
5 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,
THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER'S OFFICE,
KOKKALA, THRISSUR - 680021.
6 THE KODUNGALLOOR MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION OFFICE,
KODUNGALLOR - 680 664.
WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 4 -
15013 of 2020
7 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, THRISSUR - 680021.
8 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF CULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110 015.
9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL,
DHAROHAR BHAWAN, 24 TILAK MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
10 THRISSUR CIRCLE,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST,
PURATATTVA BHAWAN, KSHB FLATS, FF19(a), BLOCK NO.3,
PULLAZHY HOUSING SCHEME,
PULLAZHY, THRISSUR - 680 612.
11 THE PRESIDENT,
CHERAMAN JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE,
CHERAMAN MALIK NAGAR, KODUNGALLOR - 680 664.
12 THE SECRETARY,
CHERAMAN JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE,
CHERAMAN MALIK NAGAR, KODUNGALLOR - 680 664.
R1-R5 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY.
R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, STANDING COUNSEL
R7 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SC, WAQF BOARD.
R8 TO R10 BY SRI.R.PRASANTH KUMAR, CGC.
R11 & R12 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL
R11 & R12 BY ADV. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).34963/2019(U), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 5 -
15013 of 2020
K. Vinod Chandran & T.R.Ravi, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.P(C) Nos.34963 of 2019-U & 15013 of 2020-B
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 03rd day of December, 2020
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
Both the writ petitions are concerned with the Cheraman Juma Masjid; the renovation to the original Masjid as also the new structure constructed adjacent to the original one.
2. W.P(C) No.34963 of 2019 is filed by two members of the Mahallu and the prayers sought for are for certiorari to set aside the various sanctions and permissions obtained by the Mahallu Committee, restrain the Committee from constructing any structure or carrying on mining activities in the property without licenses under the Rules framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, changing the structure of the Masjid as it existed and for declaration of the Masjid as a 'protected monument' under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
3. W.P(C) No.15103 of 2020 is filed by a self proclaimed social worker and political activist interested in preserving the cultural heritage of the nation and WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 6 - 15013 of 2020 protecting the cultural legacy of Islam in India. The prayers made are again to interfere with the construction proceeded with in the site of the Masjid and to declare it as a 'protected monument' under the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Masjid has a history dating back to the 11 th Century, which is liable to be declared as an 'ancient monument' either under the Central Act or the State Act. The petitioners in W.P(C) No.34963 of 2019 contend that the sanction accorded by the District Collector under the Manual of Guidelines is for renovation and repair and not for a new construction of a Mosque. The permission granted is also prior to the permit issued by the local authority. The construction activities now in progress are also said to be in lands, the survey numbers of which have not been indicated in the various permissions and sanctions. There is no development permit under Rule 30 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the Mahallu Committee does not have a clearance from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The construction of the underground mosque will have damaging effect on the original mosque and the excavation of earth is without getting permission from the WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 7 - 15013 of 2020 Mining and Geology Department. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the other writ petition, W.P(C) No.15013 of 2020, asserted locus standi with reference to the definition of 'interested person' under the Wakf Act, 1995. It is argued on the basis of the provisions of the State Act that the Masjid is liable to be declared as a 'protected monument' and the State authorities have never attempted to examine the issue at all. The learned Counsel submits that if the prayer to declare the Masjid as a protected monument cannot be permitted, at least the prayer for consideration by the State authorities under the Act of 1968 has to be allowed.
5. We are of the opinion that the petitioner in W.P(C) No.15013 of 2020 cannot claim locus standi on the basis of the definition of interested person in the Wakf Act. The cause agitated here, for declaration of the mosque as a protected monument, is not an issue possible of determination by the authorities under the Wakf Act. Considering only the fact that the other writ petition also seeks a similar relief, we do not non-suit the petitioner in W.P(C) No.15013 of 2020.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Mahallu Committee relies on the various permissions and sanctions WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 8 - 15013 of 2020 produced along with the counter affidavit. It is argued that the mosque was reconstructed and renovated several times and this itself excludes it from being considered as a 'protected monument'; though the history of the establishment relates to centuries back. It is specifically pointed out that the writ petitions are filed on the mistaken belief that the construction carried out by the Mahallu Committee is with respect to the Cheraman Juma Masjid. In fact, the renovation of the Cheraman Juma Masjid is carried out by the State Government under the Muziris Heritage Project. The Mahallu Committee is constructing an underground mosque for the purpose of accommodating the worshipers which does not in any manner touch upon the heritage mosque and is three metres away from the existing mosque. The additional construction carried out by the Mahallu Committee is not underneath the existing mosque and the Committee has no role to play in the renovation of the existing buildings carried on by the State. We also heard the State Attorney on behalf of the State and specifically its Archaeological Department, as also the learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India and the Archaeological Survey of India.
WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 9 -
15013 of 2020
7. At the outset it has to be emphasized that both the State and the Union have filed affidavits declaring that the Cheraman Juma Masjid is not a 'protected monument' under the Central Act or the State Act. The petitioners in W.P(C) No.34963 of 2019 have asserted in the writ petition that the 'Cheraman Parambu', having an extent of about five acres, is declared as a 'protected monument' under the Department of Archaeology, under the erstwhile State of Cochin; without any substantiation of the said declaration. In any event, the respondents submit that 'Cheraman Parambu' is at a distance from the mosque and the mosque is not situated in that 'Parambu'. The State has categorically stated that no notification under the Act of 1968 is issued by the Department of Archaeology, Kerala as far as Cheraman Juma Masjid is concerned. In fact, the District Collector, considering the request of the Mahallu Committee, had sought for clarification from the Director of the State Archaeology Department, whether the subject Masjid is a 'protected monument' and the same has been responded in the negative by the Department of Archaeology. The Department has also conveyed that it has no objection in construction being carried on without damage to the heritage mosque. In such circumstance, the State Department of Archaeology was WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 10 - 15013 of 2020 seized of the matter and has not thought it fit to issue a notification under the Act of 1968.
8. Likewise, a Counsel's statement has been filed under instructions from the Superintending Archaeologist under the Ministry of Culture, Government of India. It is pointed out that but for bland statements made as to Cheraman Masjid being the second oldest mosque, there is no concrete or corroborative evidence available to substantiate the claim regarding the chronology and antiquity of Cheraman Masjid. It is alertly pointed out that even from the photographs available in the digital platforms it is vivid that the Masjid had undergone considerable structural alteration in the past years; thus restraining the Department from declaring it as a protected monument of national importance having heritage value.
9. We also notice a paragraph from Exhibit P1, relied on in both the writ petitions, a leaflet issued on the subject Mosque, which is extracted hereunder:
"It is believed that the mosque was first renovated or reconstructed sometime in the 11th Century AD and again 300 years ago. The last renovation was done in 1974 when as a result of increase in the population of the believers, an extension was constructed demolishing the front part of the Mosque. The older part of the mosque WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 11 - 15013 of 2020 including the sanctum sanctorum was left untouched and is still well preserved. Another extension was made in 1994 to accommodate the ever-increasing number of believers. When yet another extension to the mosque was needed in 2001 it was decided to reconstruct this in the model of the old mosque".
Hence, the leaflet relied on by the petitioners themselves, for asserting the status of a heritage building enabling it to be declared as a protected monument, indicates that reconstructions and renovations were carried out in 1974, 1994 and as recently as in 2001. We do not think there can be any declaration made under the Central or State Act, nor a consideration directed under the said enactments.
10. To answer the contentions otherwise raised, we look at the documents produced in W.P(C) No.34963 of 2019. Exhibit P3 is the lay out approval granted by the District Town Planner. Exhibit P4 is the communication of the State Archaeology Department to the District Collector and Exhibit P6 is the sanction granted by the District Collector. Much has been argued on the sanction granted by the District Collector, which, we are of the opinion, has no legs to stand since the District Collector exercises a confined jurisdiction with respect to establishment of a new place of worship. The jurisdiction exercised is under WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 12 - 15013 of 2020 the Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony. Clause 23 provides for any such construction of religious place to be made only with prior approval of the District Authorities, at earmarked places. Clause 23(a)(ii) makes the clearance from the District Administration compulsory for construction of a place of worship. The clearance is for the purpose of ensuring that religious activity centered around the newly established place of worship does not precipitate communal tension or law and order situation. The District Administration is obliged to ensure that no such untoward incident would be occasioned, even prior to the sanction being considered and if there is any such possibility, there should be a shifting of the location after arriving at a consensus between the parties concerned. The purpose of the prior sanction is to ensure that there shall not be any communal tension or breach of law and order, in future, for reason of the establishment of a new religious place. The District Collector in Exhibit P6 has also considered the report of the District Superintendent of Police (Rural). We do not find any mandate in the Manual obliging the authority to look at the plan before such sanction is accorded. The plan and WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 13 - 15013 of 2020 structure are in the exclusive domain of the local authority, which has also been specified in Exhibit P6 sanction.
11. Yet another contention is that the sanction is only for renovation. Looking at the vernacular expression 'വപലകരകനതന' in Exhibit P6, we are unable to accept the said contention. The expression translates as 'expansion', which precisely is what the Mahallu Committee is carrying out. The difference in survey number is pointed out from Exhibit R10(b), the Fire Safety Clearance. But the Survey numbers shown in Exhibit P6 and Exhibit R10(a) Building Permit tally. The construction should be in accordance with the Building Permit. We find no cause for interference to Exhibit P6.
12. The Mahallu Committee has relied on Exhibit R10(a) building permit issued by the local authority, the Fire Safety Clearance at Exhibit R10(b) and the communication of the Pollution Control Board at Exhibit R10(c). The building, as revealed from the permit at Exhibit R10(a), has a total area of 1506.73 square metres. The Pollution Control Board has specifically communicated that no permission or clearance is required from the Board for establishing a religious place. The learned Counsel for WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 14 - 15013 of 2020 the petitioner but for asserting such requirement, was not able to point out any provision from either the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 or the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 to substantiate the said assertion.
13. Rule 30 of the Municipality Building Rules has been read out to clarify that a building where congregation of people is allowed, falls under the category of an 'Assembly' building under Group-D. Be that as it may, we do not see any violation or any requirement on the said categorization having been flouted by the respondents. As per Rule 30(1), there is no development or town planning scheme as declared by the local authority, which would prohibit the construction of an 'Assembly' building as a religious place in the said locality.
14. Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 has been pointed out to specifically argue that there was a mining permit required to carry out excavation of earth for the purpose of construction of any building in excess of 300 square metres. The learned State Attorney has, however, placed before us a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Thrissur and Others v. Sivaraman and Another [2019 (5) KHC 929 = 2020 (1) KLT 375]. The Division Bench WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 15 - 15013 of 2020 considered the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2016 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which exempted 'environmental clearance' for carrying out excavations with respect to construction of building having built-up area up to 20000 square metres. This was further amended to 50000 square metres and 1,50,000 square metres, was the finding. The proposed construction as revealed from Exhibit R10(a) is far below that specified in the EIA notification.
15. There is also an argument addressed as to the Wakf Board having acted arbitrarily in vacating a stay which was obtained by the petitioners in W.P(C) No.34963 of 2019. However, such an order had to be challenged before the Wakf Tribunal and not before this Court. In any event, the application before the Wakf Board filed by the petitioners in W.P(C) No.34963 of 2019 are exhibited as Exhibits P11 and P12, putting forth the very same contentions against the construction, which we have already rejected. We do not find any reason to interfere with the construction carried out by the Mahallu Committee or the renovation attempted by the State, of the original Cheraman Juma Masjid.
WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 16 -
15013 of 2020 We reject both the writ petitions, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE Vku/-
WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 17 -
15013 of 2020 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34963/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAF LEFT CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE MOSQUE WHICH IS THE 1ST MASJID IN INDIA EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAWS OF CHERAMAN MOSQUE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAY OUT WAS APPROVED BY ORDER DATED 5/7/2018 OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR IN CHARGE OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DATED 23.11.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS WHICH APPEARED IN THE MUZIRIS TOURISM ON THE INTERNET EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DATED 7.1.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE REPORT DATED 5/2/2019 AND ABSTRACT ESTIMATE OF THE RENOVATION OF CHERMAN JUMA MASJID EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THRISSUR DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DATED 15.2.2019 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD DATED 9.10.2019 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE FOR STATE WAQF BOARD DATED 21.10.2019 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.P. NO.148/2019 DATED 1.10.2019 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.167/2019 IN O.P.NO.148/2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO BA-459/13-14M DATED 27.9.19 ISSUED BY THE KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 18 - 15013 of 2020 EXHIBIT R10(B) TRUE COPY OF THE FIRE CLEARANCE SAFETY FOR SITE NO F-2940/19 DATED 7.9.19 ISSUED BY REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER, FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES, PALAKKAD EXHIBIT R10(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO PCB/TSR/GEN/99/2014 DATED 5.12.19 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, PCB THRISSUR EXHIBIT R10(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 2770/C2/TDO/19 DATED 29.1.19 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR EXHIBIT R10(E) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13.1.20 IN WPC NO 29745/19 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT R10(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST, ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, THRISSUR CIRCLE.WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 19 -
15013 of 2020 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15013/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CHERAMAN MOSQUE ON THE WEBSITE OF THE 'MUZIRIS HERITAGE PROJECT'.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TWITTER POST DATED 03.04.2016 OF THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TWITTER POST DATED 10.11.2019 OF THE HON'BLE GOVERNOR OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF A LEAFLET EXPLAINING THE HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHERAMAN MOSQUE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2018 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2019 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 05.02.2019 OF THE WAKF INSPECTOR OF THE DIVISIONAL WAKF OFFICE, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 27.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRE SAFETY CLEARANCE DATED 07.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF A NEWS REPORT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.01.2020 OF THE 12TH RESPONDENT HEREIN, IN WRIT PETITION NO.34963 OF 2020, WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS.
WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 20 -15013 of 2020 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13.01.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.29745 OF 2020.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT WEBPAGE ON THE WEBSITE OF 'MUZIRIS HERITAGE PROJECT'. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF UNESCO ON 16.11.1972.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE YEAR 1972.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.07.2020 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R12(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2/1423/2018/D.DIS DATED 05/07/2018 BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT R12(b): TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION LETTER DATED 23/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, ARCHEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT R12(c): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCTSR/6851/2018/C8 DATED 07/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT R12(d): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3/3096/CR DATED 15/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL WAQF OFFICER, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT R12(e): TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.BA-
459/13-14 M DATED 27/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPLITY.
EXHIBIT R12(f): TRUE COPY OF THE FIRE CLEARANCE SAFETY FOR SITE NO.F-2940/19 DATED 07/09/2019 ISSUED BY REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER, FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES, PALAKKAD.WP(C) Nos.34963 of 2019 & - 21 -
15013 of 2020 EXHIBIT R12(g): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/10/2019 IN IA.NO.167/19 IN O.P.NO.148/19 OF THE WAQF BOARD.
EXHIBIT R12(h): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2019 IN O.P.NO.148/19 ISSUED BY THE CEO, WAQF BOARD.
EXHIBIT R12(i): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13/01/2020 IN WPC.NO.29745/19 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R12(j): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/TSR/GEN/99/2014 DATED 05/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE INVIORNMENTAL ENGINEER OF KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT R12(k): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.2770/C2/TDO/19 DATED 29/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT R12(l): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST, ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, THRISSUR CIRCLE.
[TRUE COPY]