Litto Joseph vs Kerala State Electricity Board

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Litto Joseph vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb on 3 February, 2025

The petitioner, who claims to be in possession and enjoyment of 16.47 Ares (40.68 cents) of Government Puramboke in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village from 14.05.2024, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam Range, to issue No Objection Certificate, forthwith to the 1st respondent Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Rajakumari; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Board to provide approval for electricity connection to the building located in the said land forthwith.

2. The averments in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition regarding the possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land by the petitioner, read thus;

"1. Petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of 16.47 Ares (40.68 cents) of Government puramboke land in Survey No. 34/1 of 2nd respondent village office from 14.05.2024. A true copy of the BTR issued by the 2nd respondent dated nil is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P1. A true copy of W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 4 2025:KER:8986 the tax receipt dated 21.08.2024 issued by the 2 nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P2.

2. Petitioner had purchased this land for doing cardamom farming. For the same, he had to build a small 350 Sq.ft. temporary steel structure for the purpose of storage, light, motor, temporary shelter for the person looking after the land, etc. It is needless to say that for cardamom farming, water is required in high quantity. The temporary building structure was erected, and the same was numbered 150/UA in ward 9 of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. A true copy of the ownership certificate issued by the 3rd respondent Panchayat dated 07.08.2024 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P3. A true copy of the building tax receipt issued by the 3rd respondent Panchayat with respect to building No.150/UA in ward 9 of the 3rd respondent Panchayat dated 14.06.2024 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P4."

3. On 13.09.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the matter was directed to be placed before the Division Bench dealing with matters relating to the land in Munnar Region, after obtaining orders of the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice. Thereafter, this writ petition was listed before this Division Bench.

4. On 30.09.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an application to implead the W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 5 2025:KER:8986 State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and the District Collector, Idukki District as additional respondents. On a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the building in question was constructed in June 2024, without obtaining a building permit from the Secretary of Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat.

5. By the order dated 22.10.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and the District Collector, Idukki were impleaded as additional respondents 5 and 6. The learned Special Government Pleader sought time to get instructions and file a counter affidavit of the 4th respondent Forest Range Officer, Devikulam.

6. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 03.12.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Ext.R4(a) to R4(c) documents. In paragraph 8 of that counter affidavit, the 4th respondent pointed out that the document marked as Ext.P2 is not a tax receipt, as stated in the writ petition. It is only a receipt issued from the office of the Village Officer, Chinnakanal, collecting the fee for obtaining a copy of the W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 6 2025:KER:8986 BTR. Regarding the averments in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, it is stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner is an encroacher on Government land. The land claimed to be in possession of the petitioner in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village of Devikulam Taluk is an area situated within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Forest Range, Munnar Forest Division. Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village. The Government land in the said survey numbers spreads over an extent of 2122.88 Acres. In some areas in Sy.No.34/1, the Government has granted pattas. Except for such areas, most of the Government land in in Sy.No.34/1 is under the control and possession of the Forest Department, wherein various plantations have been raised. The petitioner has not stated the exact details of the land claimed to be in his possession. Only a part of the said land is now under the control of the Forest Department since the said area is proposed as a reserve forest. The Forest Department has control and possession of major portions of Government land in Sy.No.34/1 and old Sy.No.20/1, excluding the proposed reserve forest. In the counter affidavit dated 03.12.2024, the 4th respondent has denied various averments in the writ petition. The Secretary of the 3 rd W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 7 2025:KER:8986 respondent Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat has also filed a counter affidavit dated 08.01.2025.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB for the 1st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat for the 3rd respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for respondents 2, 4 and also for additional respondents 5 and 6.

8. The issue that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 8 2025:KER:8986 the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.

10. In M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [(1998) 4 SCC 387] the Apex Court was dealing with a case arising out of the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of land for M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Apex Court noticed that, in the absence of any allegation that Rule 3 the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 had not been complied and there being no particulars in respect of non compliance of Rule 4 also, it is difficult to see as to how the High Court could have reached the finding that statutory requirements contained in these Rules were not fulfilled before issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. High Court did not give any reason as to how it reached the conclusion that Rules 3 W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 9 2025:KER:8986 and 4 had not been complied in the face of the record of the case. Rather, it returned a finding which is unsustainable that it was "not possible on the basis of the material on record to hold that there was compliance with Rules 3 and 4". The Apex Court held that, it is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied. It is a requirement of good pleading to give details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged that there is non compliance with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particulars. No issue can be raised on a plea, the foundation of which is lacking. Even where rule nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the court. On the facts of the case, the Apex Court found that the State has more than justified its stand that there has been compliance not only with Rule 4 but with Rule 3 as well, though there was no challenge to Rule 3 and the averments regarding non compliance with Rule 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever. High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the acquisition proceedings.

W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 10 2025:KER:8986

11. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 7 SCC 639] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 11 2025:KER:8986 reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice.

12. The averment in the writ petition is that the petitioner had purchased land having an extent of 16.47 Ares (40.68 cents) in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, which is a Government Puramboke, for cardamom cultivation and has built a 350 sq.ft. temporary steel structure for the purpose of storage, etc. and as a temporary shelter for persons looking after the land. The document placed on record in support of the said claim is Ext.P2 receipt dated 21.08.2024 issued from the Village Office, Chinnakkanal. Though the said document is marked as a tax receipt dated 21.08.2024, as stated in the counter affidavit dated 03.12.2024 filed by the 4th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam Range, Ext.P2 receipt issued from the office of the Village Officer, Chinnakanal, is only a receipt for the fee collected for obtaining a copy of Ext.P1 BTR. The document marked as Ext.P3 is an ownership certificate dated 07.08.2024 obtained by the petitioner in respect of building bearing No.150/UA in Ward No.9 of Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat. The said building is the temporary shed (350 sq. ft.) referred to in paragraph 2 of the statement of facts of the writ petition. Though the averments in W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 12 2025:KER:8986 paragraph 2 of the statement of facts are that the said shed is intended for the purpose of storage, etc. and as a temporary shelter for persons looking after the land, the averment in Ext.P6 application dated 09.08.2024 made by the petitioner before the 4th respondent Forest Range Officer is that he is residing in building bearing No.9/150/UA in Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat, which is one constructed for residential purpose. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed the date on which he got possession and enjoyment of Government land having an extent of 16.47 Ares (40.68 cents) in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village or the date on which he had put up the temporary shed (350 sq. ft.) in the said land. From the pleading and materials on record, it prima facie appears that the petitioner had put up the said shed on the property only in the year 2024.

13. In W.P.(C)Nos.34095 of 2007 and 1801 of 2010 pending before this Court, which relates to large scale encroachment of revenue and forest lands, issuance of forged patta, etc., adversely affecting even the upkeep of the terrain of Munnar, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 21.01.2010, after recording the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State of Kerala, that W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 13 2025:KER:8986 no construction could be carried out in Munnar without No Objection Certificate from Revenue Department and without permission from the Grama Panchayat. Paragraphs 15 to 21 and also the last paragraph of the order dated 21.01.2010 read thus;

"15. Environmental Laws, Laws relating to Mining and Geology and various other aspects are required and are in place to ensure that Nature is preserved and she is subjected only to such necessary intrusion, for sustaining development. Mining of even ordinary earth, as also laterite, rocks etc. could have been had only with proper permissions through competent officers in accordance with the relevant Rules and Regulations. If large scale excavation of soil, as reported by the Principal Secretary and by the Additional Director General of Intelligence, have happened, obviously, that is in violation of the laws. The concept of the Government collecting royalty and even imposing fine or both, would in no manner substitute the harm, for, it is seldom possible to restore earth to her original situation, even with abundant human effort made with the aid of funds.

16. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Government will place on record, without fail, reports on the entire action taken on the basis of the reports which are Exts.P2 to P4 in W.P.(C)No.34095 of 2007, more particularly, regarding the action taken against the identified officers who were duty bound to discharge duties and responsibilities as noted above and have not done so. It shall be stated as to whether action has been taken against any particular W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 14 2025:KER:8986 officer. The total number of criminal cases registered and preventive action, if any, taken shall be reported.

17. For the time being, we record the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State that no construction activity could be carried out in Munnar without No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department and without permission of the Panchayat.

18. Hence, it is hereby ordered that the Revenue Officials, Local Self Government Authorities, the Police and Forest Authorities shall ensure that no construction activity takes place in Munnar without No Objection Certificate being issued by the Revenue Department and without permission being given by the Panchayat authorities, except in cases which are governed by Court orders.

19. It is further ordered that the revenue authorities and police officials of Munnar shall forthwith see that there is no mining of any type of sand, earth, rocks, granite, laterite etc. from any part of Munnar for a period of two months until otherwise ordered by this Court.

20. It shall also be ensured that encroachment, if any, in river puramboke are immediately identified and action taken in terms of the appropriate laws for getting back possession of such parcels. It is further ordered that no construction activity would be permitted on the shores of rivers and riverbeds.

21. Having regard to the different provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, the different laws and also the requirement that the entire Munnar area requires to be W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 15 2025:KER:8986 immediately looked into by the Revenue Department, the Revenue Department and the Forest Department will place reports as are necessary for further management of the situation by the next date of posting."

14. 'Munnar area' as defined in clause (g) of Section 2 of Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010 mean all lands comprised in the villages of Chinnakkanal, Kannan Devan Hills, Santhanpara, Vellathooval, Aanavilasam, Pallivasal, Aanaviratty and Bison Valley in Devikulam and Udumbanchola Taluks in Idukki District. [Kannan Devan Hills Village later bifurcated to Edamalakkudy Village and Mankulam Village].

15. The order dated 21.01.2010 in W.P.(C)No.34095 of 2007 and W.P.(C)No.1801 of 2010 was followed by a series of orders in those writ petitions and also the tagged matters. In view of the prohibitory orders issued by the Division Bench, which is in force from 21.01.2010 onwards, any constructions in Munnar region, which fall within the purview of the aforesaid orders, is permissible only after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department.

16. In the judgment dated 23.04.2024 in W.P.(C)No.16230 of 2024, this Court noticed the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader that in the process of verification, the W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 16 2025:KER:8986 genuinity of the patta and other aspects are also being considered by the Revenue officials and it is only thereafter that a No Objection Certificate is being granted.

17. In the instant case, the land in question falls in Chinnakannal Village, which is an area within the purview of the order dated 21.01.2010 of the Division Bench in W.P.(C)No.1801 of 2010. As already noticed, from the pleading and materials on record, it prima facie appears that the petitioner had put up the shed on the property in question only in the year 2024.

18. On a query made by this Court, the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat is that, as stated in the counter affidavit dated 08.01.2025 filed by the 3rd respondent, based on the application made by the petitioner on 22.05.2024 for assigning building number, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat assigned only 'U.A. number' for the shed, in view of the circular No.48297/RA.1/ 09/LSGD dated 10.08.2009 issued by the Local Self Government (R.A.) Department for the purpose of issuing temporary building numbers to residential huts situated in Puramboke lands.

19. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the order dated 21.01.2010 in W.P.(C)No.1801 of 2010 the Division Bench W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 17 2025:KER:8986 recorded the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State of Kerala, that no construction could be carried out in Munnar without No Objection Certificate from Revenue Department and without permission from the Grama Panchayat. As noticed in the judgment dated 23.04.2024 in W.P.(C)No.16230 of 2024, in the process of verification, the genuinity of the patta and other aspects are also being considered by the Revenue officials and it is only thereafter that a No Objection Certificate is being granted. Therefore, when the area in question is in Munnar region covered by the prohibitory orders issued by the Division Bench in W.P.(C)No.1801 of 2010 and connected matters, in the absence of a No Objection Certificate issued by the Revenue Department, the Secretary of the 3 rd respondent Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat should not have assigned 'UA number' to the shed put up by the petitioner in the property in question. Further, the said shed, which is intended for the purpose of storage, etc. and as a temporary shelter for persons looking after the land would not fall under the category of 'huts for residential purpose' referred to circular No.48297/RA.1/ 09/LSGD dated 10.08.2009 issued by the Local Self Government (R.A.) Department.

W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 18 2025:KER:8986

20. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam Range is that Ext.P3 ownership certificate dated 07.08.2024 and Ext.P4 building tax receipt dated 14.06.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat in respect of the shed put up by the petitioner in the property in question are collusive and illegal acts, for creating documents for trespassers and encroachers of Government land, so as to enable such persons to make claim in respect of encroached Government land. A perusal of Ext.P4 receipt would show remittance of building tax for the first and second half of the year 2024-25. It is immediately after the issuance of Ext.P4 receipt dated 14.06.2024 that the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P3 ownership certificate dated 07.08.2024 to the petitioner, in respect of the shed bearing No.150/UA in Ward No.9, put up in the property in question. In the counter affidavit dated 08.01.2025 filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat, which is one sworn to by the Assistant Secretary, who is holding charge of the Secretary, nothing has been stated as to the date on which the petitioner has put up that structure on the property in question and whether it is W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 19 2025:KER:8986 for the first time that the building tax in respect of that shed was collected during the first half of 2024-25.

21. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) would point out the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam Range that the area where the petitioner had put up an illegal construction is in Singukandam area of Chinnakanal where there are several issues of other encroachments and human-wild elephant conflict. The petitioner, who claims to have purchased the Government Puramboke on 30.05.2024, has put up a home stay type house with two rooms by erecting iron pipes and the roof is covered with tint sheets. In the surrounding area there are eucalyptus trees. The other houses and cardamom cultivation found in the adjacent areas are illegal. None of the encroachers in Singukandam area are issued with patta. In the said area humans died due to attack by elephants on 19.11.2012, 09.06.2017 and 07.12.2017. About 100 meters from the shed put up by the petitioner, a person by name Babu was stamped to death by a wild elephant on 30.03.2021. The area where a home stay is being constructed by the petitioner and its surroundings are elephant corridors and elephant habitat.

W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 20 2025:KER:8986

22. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent Range Forest Officer is that the land in question is under his jurisdiction. As per Section 66 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, every forest officer and police officer shall prevent and may interfere for the purpose of preventing the commission of any forest offence and shall have power to evict all encroachers and squatters from reserved forest or other lands under the control of the Forest Department and to confiscate or demolish any sheds or other structures put up in such lands. Forest officers shall have the powers of the police officers for the purpose of investigation or prevention of forest offences and the collection of evidence. Therefore, the 4th respondent Range Forest Officer and also the Deputy Range Officer, who is the subordinate officer of the 4 th respondent, who are empowered to prevent commission of offence in respect of reserved forest or other lands under the control of the Forest Department, is not legally bound to issue a no-objection certificate to the petitioner for getting electric connection to the shed put up by him after encroaching the Government land. In paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit, the 4th respondent has stated that the disputed land is a prime elephant habitat and a herd of 18 wild elephants are roaming in the said habitat.

W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 21 2025:KER:8986 Therefore, unscientific drawing of power lines by the 1 st respondent Kerala State Electricity Board, without consulting the Forest Department, could be detrimental to the aforesaid 18 elephants roaming in the area, which is their primary habitat, causing danger to the lives of those elephants. In the counter affidavit it is pointed out that any consequential danger to the wild elephants will attract the offence of hunting, punishable under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

23. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, Ext.R4(a) notification dated 20.09.2023 issued by the Forest and Wildlife (C) Department under Section 4 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 notifying 364.89 hectares (901.66 acres) of land comprised in various survey numbers of Chinnakanal Village, as proposed reserve forest, is placed on record. The documents marked as Exts.R4(b) and R4(c) are occurrence reports filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam as O.R.Nos.28/2019 and 22/2021 of the Devikulam Forest Range in connection with the killing of two elephants by electrocution from the illegal power fences drawn and connected directly from the electric posts erected by KSEB near 301 colony.

W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 22 2025:KER:8986

24. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction.

25. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 23 2025:KER:8986 upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice.

26. The 4th respondent Range Forest Officer, who has a statutory duty under Section 66 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 to prevent commission of any forest offence and the power to evict all encroachers from the reserve forest or other lands under the control of the Forest Department and to confiscate or demolish any sheds or other structures put up in such lands, cannot be directed by way of a writ of mandamus, to issue a no-objection certificate, as sought for in Ext.P6 application dated 09.08.2024, in respect of the shed unauthorisedly put up by the petitioner in the land in question, so as to enable him to get electric connection from the 1st respondent KSEB. Since the said land falls within Munnar region, in view of the orders of this Court in W.P.(C)No.1801 of 2010, the petitioner who have put up such a structure in the year 2024, without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department, cannot obtain electric connection to the said shed, on the strength of Ext.P3 ownership certificate dated 07.08.2024 issued by the Secretary of the 3rd W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024 24 2025:KER:8986 respondent Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat and Ext.P4 building tax receipt dated 14.06.2024.

27. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Registry to incorporate a copy of this judgment in the judges' papers of W.P.(C)No.1801 of 2010, in which this Court noticed indiscriminate issuance of building permits by the Secretary of Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat, openly flouting the prohibitory orders issued by this Court in that writ petition and connected matters. By the order passed in W.P.(C)No.1801 of 2010, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was directed to be personally present in Court. Before the date of appearance, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was placed under suspension and at present, the Assistant Secretary, who has sworn to the counter affidavit dated 08.01.2025 of the 3rd respondent, is holding charge of the Secretary.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

                                           MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
 W.P.(C)No.32980 of 2024                 25                    2025:KER:8986

                          APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32980/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1                         TRUE COPY OF THE BTR ISSUED BY 2ND
                                   RESPONDENT DATED NIL

EXHIBIT P2                         TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
                                   21/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
                                   RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3                         TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP
                                   CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
                                   RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED
                                   07.08.2024

EXHIBIT P4                         TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX
                                   RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
                                   PANCHAYATH WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING
                                   NUMBER 150/UA IN WARD 9 OF 3RD
                                   RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED
                                   14.06.2024

EXHIBIT P5                         A CUSTOMER COPY OF THE APPLICATION
                                   DATED NIL MADE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
                                   BOARD

EXHIBIT P6                         A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
                                   09/08/2024 MADE BY THE PETITIONER
                                   WITH THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7                         A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
                                   NO.42/2024 DATED 30/08/2024 ISSUED
                                   BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBITR4(A)                       TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED
                                   VIDE GO(P)19/2023/F AND WLD DATED
                                   20.09.2023

EXHIBITR4(B)                       TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.1 IN OA
                                   28/2019

EXHIBITR4(C)                       TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.1 IN OA 22/2021

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court