Kerala High Court
Laly Sebastian vs The Mutholy Grama Panchayath on 9 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KER 779
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E)
PETITIONERS:
LALY SEBASTIAN
W/O.JOSEPH,VARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MUTHOLY POST,KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
MUTHOLY POST,KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,PIN-686597.
2 THE MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
MUTHOLY POST,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686597.
3 K.M.MATHEW
S/O.MATHAI,KOCHINIKUNNEL HOUSE,
MUTHOLY POST,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686597.
4 THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN-695001.
* 5 DIVAKARAN.E.K.
S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT ENCHAYIL
HOUSE, MUTHOLY.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -686597.
* 6 V.S.SEBASTIAN
VALLIKKATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MUTHOLY.P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -686597.
* 7 LUKACHAN JOSEPH
VALLIKKATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, CHERPUNKAL.P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN -686584.
* 8 C.J.JOSEPH
CHELAKATTU HOUSE, MUTHOLY.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN -686597.
WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E)
2
* 9 K.U.FRANCIES
VARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTHOLY.P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -686597.
* 10 V.J.MATHEW
VETTIKOMBIL HOUSE, MUTHOLY.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN -686597.
*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 03/07/13 IN I.A. NO.7149/13
BY ADVS:
SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC,SC,MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
SRI.LAL GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).33996/2016(Y), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E)
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.33996 OF 2016
PETITIONER
JOSE.V.S
VALLIKATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MUTHOLY P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 597.
BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
MUTHOLY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 597,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
2 THE PRESIDENT
MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTHOLY P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 597.
3 LALY SEBASTIAN
W/O. JOSEPH, VARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTHOLY P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 597.
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
COLLECTORATE KOTTAYAM, 686 001.
BY ADVS:
SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).5042/2013(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E)
4
W.P.(C) Nos.5042 of 2013 & 33996 of 2016
--------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The issues arising for consideration in these writ petitions being closely interlinked, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.5042 of 2013.
2. The petitioner is running a rubber band manufacturing industry within the limits of the first respondent Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, she is running the industrial unit since 2003 after obtaining all the requisite licences, including the licence of the Panchayat. Ext.P5 is the application preferred by the petitioner for licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (the Rules), for the year 2012-13. Licence has been granted to the petitioner on Ext.P5 application only for the period upto 30.06.2012 as the consent obtained by the petitioner for operating the unit from the Pollution Control Board was due to expire on 30.06.2012. Ext.P6 is the licence issued to the petitioner in this regard. It is stated by the petitioner that before the expiry of Ext.P6 licence, the petitioner obtained renewal of the consent of the Pollution Control Board and requested the Panchayat to extend the validity of Ext.P6 licence till 31.03.2013. The Secretary of the Panchayat placed the said request of the petitioner before WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 5 the Panchayat since a complaint has been received by the Panchayat in the meanwhile concerning the functioning of the industrial unit of the petitioner. On the said reference, the Panchayat decided to renew the licence of the petitioner upto 31.03.2013. Ext.P7 is the decision taken by the Panchayat in this regard. In the light of Ext.P7 decision, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued a revised licence to the petitioner under the Rules for the period upto 31.03.2013. Ext.P8 is the said licence. Ext.P7 decision of the Panchayat and Ext.P8 licence have been challenged by one K.M.Mathew before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (the Tribunal) in Appeal No.1070 of 2012. In the said appeal, the Tribunal found that the petitioner has not obtained permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act) for establishing the industrial unit and the licence issued to the petitioner under the Rules is therefore, illegal. The Tribunal, in the circumstances, disposed of the appeal as per Ext.P12 order permitting the petitioner to prefer an application for permission before the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act and an application for licence before the Secretary of the Panchayat under Rule 12(2) of the Rules. As per Ext.P12 order, the Tribunal has also directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to submit the report provided for under Section 233 of the Act before the Panchayat and directed the Panchayat to consider the application of the petitioner for permission under Section 233 of the Act on the basis of the said report. It was also directed by the Tribunal in the said order that if the Panchayat decides to grant permission to the petitioner under Section 233 of the Act, the Secretary shall consider the application for licence submitted by WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 6 the petitioner in accordance with law thereafter. In terms of Ext.P12 order, the Tribunal has also restrained the petitioner from running the industrial unit till he obtains licence under the Rules. W.P.(C)No.5042 of 2013 is instituted challenging Ext.P12 order of the Tribunal.
3. On 22.02.2013, this Court passed the following interim order.
"Admit. Issue notice by speed post to respondents 1 to 3. Notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner under takes that the petitioner would not use any motor in excess of 5 HP and seeks permission to run the factory for a period of two weeks for the purpose of completing the manufacturing process of half finished goods, that are remaining in the premises. Otherwise, it is conceded that the petitioner would suffer loss to the tune of lakhs of rupees.
In view of the above submissions, the petitioner is granted permission to operate the factory for a period of two weeks for the only purpose of completing the manufacturing process of semi-processed goods that are remaining at the factory premises, using the 5 HP motor. The first respondent shall ensure that the above conditions are complied with.
Hand over."
It is seen that the said interim order has been extended by this court from time to time and the petitioner is running the industrial unit based on the interim order ever since 22.02.2013.
4. W.P.(C) No.33996 of 2016 is a writ petition filed in the meanwhile by a person residing in the neighborhood of the industrial unit of the petitioner, seeking orders directing the Panchayat to ensure that the petitioner does not operate the industrial unit without obtaining licence from WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 7 the Panchayat.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions and the learned counsel for the Panchayat.
6. When the matters were taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner has been operating the industrial since 22.02.2013 based on the interim order passed by this court on 22.02.2013 as extended from time to time, and that the petitioner has neither obtained permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act nor obtained licence under the Rules.
7. Be that as it may, the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner need not have to obtain permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act, as the capacity of the machinery used by her in the industrial unit is less than 5 HP. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of Ext.P29 order of the Government, she is not required to obtain licence under the Rules also for the industrial unit run by her. According to the petitioner, Ext.P12 order of the Tribunal, in the circumstances, is liable to be interfered with.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33996 of 2016 pointed out that the industrial unit of the petitioner is causing severe pollution and life near the unit has become miserable. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said case that earlier, taking advantage of the fact that the industrial unit is situated on the boundary of the first respondent Panchayat and Kozhuvanal Grama WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 8 Panchayat, the petitioner obtained licence from Kozhuvanal Grama Panchayat and having found that the industry is causing pollution, the said licence has been revoked by the said Panchayat. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said case, no interference is called for in the order passed by the Tribunal.
9. The first and foremost issue to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is required to obtain permission under Section 233 of the Act. No doubt, if the petitioner does not use machinery having capacity exceeding 5 HP, she is not obliged to obtain permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted at the time of hearing that the petitioner does not use machinery having capacity exceeding 5 HP in her industry, it is seen that the petitioner has claimed in Ext.P5 application preferred by her for licence under the Rules for the year 2012-13 that she is using machinery having a capacity of 8 HP in her industry. In so far as the petitioner claimed that she is using machinery having capacity of 8 HP in her industrial unit, it is unnecessary to go into the question as to whether the petitioner is using machinery having capacity exceeding 5HP, for the purpose of examining the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal. Needless to say that when the petitioner had claimed in the application for licence that she is using machinery having a capacity exceeding 5 HP in her industrial unit, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with for having required the petitioner to obtain permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act.
10. Coming to the contention raised by the petitioner based on WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 9 Ext.P29 order of the Government, it is to be noted that the requirement of the licence is one under Section 232 of the Act, and the Rules have been issued for governing the grant of licence under Section 232 of the Act. It is trite that a statutory requirement cannot be nullified by the Government in terms of an executive order. Be that as it may, a reading of Ext.P29 order would indicate that the Government has exempted only nano household units from the requirement of the licence under the Act. The said aspect is evident from Ext.P29 order itself. The operative portion of Ext.P29 reads thus :
"(2) സർകകർ ഇകകരരര വവശദമകയവ പരവശശകധവച. ശകേരള പഞകയതത്ത് രകജത്ത് ആകത്ത് 1994 (Section 233B ) പ്രകേകരവര മുനവസവപകലവറവ ആകത്ത് 1994 (Section 450)പ്രകേകരവര വരവസകയ വകപവനനയര മലവനനകേരണ നവയനണ ശബകർഡവനനയര അരഗനകേകരമുള 5HP യവൽ തകനഴ ശശഷവയള ഉപകേരണങൾ ഉപശയകഗനപടതന വരവസകയ യണവറകേൾകത്ത് പഞകയതത്ത്, മുനവസവപകലവറവ എനവവയനട അനമതവ ആവശരമവലകനയനളതവനകൽ നകശനക ഹഹസത്ത് ശഹകൾഡത്ത് യണവറകേനള പരകമർശര(1)നല ഉതരവവനല മകർഗ നവർശദശതവൽ പ്രതവപകദവചവരവകര പ്രകേകരര തശദശ സസയര ഭരണ സകപനങൾ നൽകന ലലസൻസത്ത് എടകനതവൽ നവനര ഒഴവവകകവനകകണത്ത് ഉതരവത്ത് പുറനപടവവകന."
Ext.P29 Government Order has been produced by the petitioner along with her counter affidavit in I.A.No.1 of 2020. In the said counter affidavit, the petitioner has no case that her industrial unit is a nano household unit. On the other hand, what is stated by her in the counter affidavit is that in terms of the said order, the Government has exempted all industrial units using machinery having capacity below 5 HP, from the obligation to obtain licence under the Rules. The said stand of the petitioner is per se contrary to the requirement under Section 232 of the Act. In other words, so long as the WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 10 industrial unit of the petitioner falls within the scope of Section 232 of the Act, she is required to obtain licence under the Rules. Needless to say that there is absolutely no infirmity in Ext.P12 decision of the Tribunal.
11. However, in the light of the specific contention of the petitioner that she is not using machinery having capacity exceeding 5 HP in the industrial unit, and in the light of the specific contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33996 of 2016 that the industry of the petitioner is causing pollution and nuisance, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions :
1) The directions (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) in Ext.P12 order of the Tribunal will stand confirmed. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner does not use machinery having capacity exceeding 5 HP, she need not have to obtain permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act.
2) The Secretary of the Panchayat shall inspect the industrial unit of the petitioner on receipt of a copy of this judgment and ascertain the capacity of the machinery used by the petitioner with the assistance of an expert. It is clarified that if it is found that the capacity of the machinery used by the petitioner does not exceed 5 HP, the Secretary of the Panchayat can straight away consider the application for licence under the Rules, if an application is made for licence by the petitioner under the Rules in the meanwhile.
3) If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to licence under the Rules as per the existing norms, the Secretary shall also consider, before issuing licence, as to whether the industrial unit is likely to cause nuisance, WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 11 as provided for under sub section (1) of Section 233A of the Act, and issue appropriate directions to the petitioner under that provision as well, after complying with the provisions contained in sub section(2) of Section 233A of the Act.
4) If the petitioner prefers application for permission under Section 233 of the Act and for licence under the Rules as permitted by the Tribunal in Ext.P12 order, the proceedings directed in the said order as also the directions issued in this judgment shall be complied with by the Panchayat/Secretary within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5) It is clarified that as the petitioner does not have licence to run the industrial unit as of now, she will be entitled to run the unit only after obtaining licence.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Mn WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 12 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5042/2013 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 08/10/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 16/11/2005 ISSUED BY THE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 08/08/2012.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12/03/2012.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 03/04/2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 03/10/2012 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 01/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2012 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 15/01/2013.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/02/2013 IN APPEAL NO.1070/2012 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 13 EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29/06/2012 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 (1). A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 17/02/2004 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. (2). A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09/11/2013.
EXHIBIT P16 (1). A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07/12/2004 TO THE SECRETARY, MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. (2). A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25/02/2019.
EXHIBIT P17 (1). A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 09/12/2004 GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER. (2). A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 25/02/2019.
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05/04/2005.
EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/02/2013 BY THE SECRETARY TO THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL.
EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO THE SECRETARY DATED 08/03/2013.
EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/03/2013 BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO THE SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 02/03/2013.
EXHIBIT P22(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE SECRETARY
TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 08/04/2013.
EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/04/2013 BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE SECRETARY TO THE MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 14 EXHIBIT P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MUTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 18/06/2012.
EXHIBIT P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE DATED 15/05/2012.
EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13/12/2020 PREPARED BY THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT GRADE- II, ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT)NO.....2020/LSGD DATED 01/2020.
EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE FOR THE PERIOD 2020-23 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 29/02/2020.
EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH ACKNOWLEDGING ACCEPTANCE OF EXT.P30 APPLICATION.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9-11-2013 EXHIBIT R5 B PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE UNANIMOUS DECISION DATED 15.10.2003 TAKEN BY THE KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH CANCELING THE LICENSE EXHIBIT R5 C PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 1.12.2015 EXHIBIT R5 D PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER EXHIBIT R5 E PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN THAT REGARD EXHIBIT R5 F PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9-10-2019 EXHIBIT R5(g): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19/02/2020 OBTAINED FROM THE MULTHOLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT R5(H) TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING PREMISES OF THE FACTORY DURING FLOOD TIME.
WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 15 EXHIBIT R5(I) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE FACTORY BUILDING AND ITS PREMISES.
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.9 DATED 15/10/2003 OF KOZHUVINAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.589/2002 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 18/04/2012 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF MASS PETITION DATED 20/09/2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA WP(C).No.5042 OF 2013(E) 16 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33996/2016 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-02-2013 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO 1070/2012 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08-08-2012 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09- 11-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09- 11-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTAITON DATED 09- 11-2013 FILED BY THE SECRETARY OF MANJANKKALKUNNU DRINKING WATER SUPPLY SOCIETY BEFORE RESPONDENT NO 1 AND 2 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-10-2015 IN WP(C) NO 31309/2013 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-02-2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.