Kerala High Court
Valsa Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 72, (2020) 1 KER LT 675
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.126 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 21104/2016 DATED 29-11-2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VALSA RAJAN
AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN, POIKATTIL HOUSE, PINDIMANA
KARA, PINDIMANA VILLAGE
BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 THE SECRTARY
PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PINDIMANA P.O, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICTPIN 686 692
3 THE PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PINDIMANA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM 686 692.
4 P.M SAJEEVAN
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN, PULPARAKUDY, PINDIMANA
VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM
5 A.M GEORGE @ MATHEW GEORGE
AMBAZHAPUMKUDIYIL, BHOOTHATHANKETTU P.O, PINDIMANA,
KOTHAMANGALAM
R1 BY SURIN GEORGE IP, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2&R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.V.BABY, SC, PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
R2 & R3 BY SRI. P.V.BABY, SC, PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.DENU JOSEPH
R4&R5 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-01-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1759/2017, THE COURT ON 28.01.2020 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 :2:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1759 OF 2017
JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2016 IN WPC 21090/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
T.P.RAJAN
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. PAUL, POIKATTIL HOUSE,PINDIMANA KARA,
PINDIMANA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT,STATE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY,
PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,PNDIMANA P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT,PIN - 686 692.
3 THE PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PINDIMANA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,ERNAKULAM - 686 692.
4 P.M.SAJEEVAN
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN,PULPARAKUDY, PINDIMANA
VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 692.
5 A.M.GEORGE @MATHEW GEORGE
AMBAZHAPUMKUDIYIL, BOOTHATHANKETTU P.O.,PINDIMANA,
KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 692.
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.V.BABY, SC, PINDIMANA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,
R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW
R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.DENU JOSEPH
R1 BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-01-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.126/2017, THE COURT ON 28.01.2020, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 :3:
'CR'
JUDGMENT
Shaji P.Chaly, J.
These writ appeals are directed against a common judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.21104 and 21090 of 2016, which were dismissed along with yet another writ petition declining the reliefs sought for by the appellants in the writ petitions. Appellants are wife and husband respectively.
2. The subject issue relates to the revocation of licence granted to the appellants to run a poultry farm by the Grama Panchayat under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Livestock Farms) Rules, 2012 ('the Rules 2012' for short) constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
3. The writ petitioners challenged action of the Secretary of the Panchayat before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the said appeal, which was the subject matter of consideration before the learned single Judge.
4. The learned single Judge, after evaluating the rival submissions, has held that the poultry farms operated by the appellants are situated within the prohibited distance prescribed in Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2012 i.e., within 4 kms. of areal W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 :4: distance from Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary and therefore, the revocation of the licence by the Secretary of the Panchayat is in accordance with law.
5. The appellants had a case that the Assistant Wild Life Warden has issued a certificate, which was produced along with the appeal before the Tribunal as Ext.P1, which indicates that the poultry farms are at a distance of 8 kms. by road from the bird sanctuary and therefore, there is no difficulty in the writ petitioners carrying on such a firm. It was found by the learned single Judge that the Assistant Wild Life Warden does not have any power to exempt the prescriptions in the statutory provision. Further, taking into account Ext.R3(e) issued by the Divisional Forest Officer concerned, it was found that the establishment of the poultry farms were not in accordance with law. The contention put forth by the appellants was that Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2012 possibly applies only to water bodies, wherein migratory birds alone are found. It was found that no such assumption from the words employed in the said Rule and the contentions are specious. Therefore, It was held that there would not be any water body exclusively for the use of migratory birds and the sanctuaries are identified only on the studies conducted and the frequency of migratory birds coming into W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 :5: such places in definite periodic intervals. Therefore, sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2012 would definitely stand against the poultry farms established by the appellants. Going by the clear prohibition on the establishment of poultry farms within an areal distance of 4 kms. of the bird sanctuary, it was also found that the the areal distance from the Sanctuary is not disputed and therefore, the allegations of the writ petitioners that they have not been heard by the Tribunal are of no consequence since even if a hearing is directed, it would be an empty formality.
6. In the instant appeals, we are called upon to consider as to whether there is any legal infirmity in the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge, especially taking into account Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2012.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Dr. George Abraham, learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Surin George Ipe, Adv. P.V Baby for the Panchayat and Sri. Saji Mathew for the private parties and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
8. The basic contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per the notification issued by the Government of Kerala dated 27.08.1983 bearing SRO No. W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 :6: 1209/83, the water body situated near to the poultry farms of the appellants is not included. In fact, the aforesaid notification was issued by the State Government in accordance with the stipulations contained in Section 18 of the Wile Life (Protection Act), 1972 (for short 'the Act, 1972'). Section 18 of the Act, 1972, which deals with declaration of sanctuary, reads thus:
18. Declaration of sanctuary.--
(1) The State Government may, by notification, declare its intention to constitute any area other than an area comprised within any reserve forest or the territorial waters as a sanctuary if it considers that such area is of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance, for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild life or its environment.] (2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall specify, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such area.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section it shall be sufficient to describe the area by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries."
9. Having realised the situation and limits of Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary, and found that it has developed adequate ecological, faunal, floral, natural or zoological significance, the State Government has issued notification under the Act, 1972 to be a sanctuary to be known as the Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild life or its environment. The schedule to the said notification read thus: W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 :7:
District -Idukki Taluk -Devikulam
Situation and Limits of the Area
North From the confluence of Idamalayar with Periyar, the
boundary proceeds towards east along the right bank of
Idamalayar up to the confluence of Kuttampuzha river with Idamalayar.
East From the confluence of Kuttampuzha river with Idamalayar the boundary proceeds towards south along the right bank of Kuttampuzha river and cut division boundary near Puzhamudy.
South From there the boundary proceeds towards west and joins with Periyar.
West Then the boundary proceeds along the right bank of Periyar till it joins with Idamalayar.
10. The note appended to the notification reads thus:
"The State Wildlife Advisory Board meetings held at Thiruvananthapuram on 27.08.1981 have recommended to declare the Thattekkad areas as a Bird Sanctuary. Government consider it absolutely necessary to declare the Thattekkad area as a Bird Sanctuary under Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. This notification is intended to achieve the above object."
11. Relying upon the said provisions, the contention advanced is that as per Section 18 of the Act, 1972, the State Government has declared the area in question only as a sanctuary and it is never intended for protecting the migratory birds. It is also pointed out that in Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary, there are no migratory birds, and further that no birds prone to water bodies are available. Therefore, it is submitted that Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2012 will not stand in the way of the appellants securing licence since the provisions of Section 18 of W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 :8: the Act, 1972 and the notification issued thereunder will not apply to the grant of licence as per Rules, 2012. Rules 2012 is published by the State Government in the vernacular and Rule 3(4) reads thus when translated:
"Rule 3(4) No person shall conduct or carry on any activities in connection with the establishment of poultry farm within the radius of four kms. from any of the notified water bodies by the Government where migratory birds resides."
12. Accordingly, the contention is that the notification under Section 18 of the Act, 1972 only deals with a sanctuary and therefore, Rule 3(4) will have to be read in isolation with Section 18 of the Act, 1972 and the notification issued thereunder. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned single Judge has not taken into account the said aspects and therefore, the learned single Judge has not exercised the discretion conferred under Article 226 in accordance with law. Apart from the same, it is pointed out that the description of the boundary shows that the property of the appellants is situated far away from the area described in the notification issued by the State Government, which aspect was not taken into account by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat while revoking the licence.
13. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader has produced a notification issued by the Ministry of W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 :9: Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi dated 27.01.2016, wherein it is stated that Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary is situated between 1007' and 110N latitude and 76040' & 77045'E longitude in Ernakulam District in the State of Kerala and is spread over an area of 25.16 square kilometer. It is also stated thereunder that the sanctuary located on the northern bank of river Periyar in the foothills of the Western Ghats and is part of a large ecological unit comprising of Malayattoor, Sholayar and Parambikulam hill ranges on the one side and Munnar and Eravikulam and Chinnar on the other side supporting diverse vegetation types from Evergreen to Scrub forests, which enables the birds in their seasonal migration. It is also noted thereunder that the sanctuary has very high avian diversity of 284 species of birds, including rare species like three toed forest kingfisher, Ceylon Frogmouth, Crimson-Throated Barbet, Bee-Eater, Sunbird, Shrike, Fairy Blue Bird, Grey Headed Fishing Eagle, Black Winged Kite, Night Heron, Grey Heron, Malabar Trogon, Shama and Malabar Grey Hornbill. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants that there are no migratory birds visiting the sanctuary is not true or correct.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants however W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 10 : contended that the said notification issued by the Government of India will not apply to the fact and law in issue since the said notification is issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act and it has got nothing to do with the Rules, 2012. However, fact remains, the learned Senior Government Pleader has produced the same only to show that the migratory birds are also visiting the place in question.
15. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 have also produced documents to show that the area within the Boothathankettu Dam, which is an irrigation Dam, is also included in the sanctuary area. Therefore, it is submitted that the contention put forth by the counsel for the appellants that the area where the appellants conducted the poultry firm is situated far away and measurements were not taken properly, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the appellants also have a case that Annexure A2 notification issued under Section 18 of Regulation 2 of 1068 dated 1 st July 1095, published in kerala Gazette No. 37 dated 20th September, 1983 would show that Periyar or any of the rivers notified as water bodies are used as habitat by migratory birds. But, from the said notification, it is clear that the notification was issued declaring certain areas described thereunder as Reserved Forest. However, under the W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 11 : Act, 1972, the power is conferred on the State Government to issue notification excluding the area covered in any Reserve Forest or the territorial waters as a sanctuary. Therefore, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants, relying upon Annexure A2, cannot be sustained under law. Yet another contention advanced is that as per Annexure A4 produced along with W.A. No. 126 of 2017 issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Ernakulam dated 13.10.2017, it is specified that the Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary has not been declared as a dwelling place for migratory birds and accordingly, directed the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat in question to take action for the issuance of the licence to the poultry farm and to report the matter to the office of the Deputy Director of Panchayat. It is also argued that from Annexure A5 information given by the State Public Information Officer and Wild Life Warden, Painavu, Idukki District, it is evident that, no migratory birds are using any water bodies at Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary. But, in our considered opinion, neither the Panchayat Deputy Director nor the Wildlife Warden are empowered to overlook the notification issued by the State Government under Section 18 of the Act, 1972. Further, the information only says that, no water bodies visited by the migratory birds are notified. Such W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 12 : documents can never be treated as any conclusive proof to arrive at a conclusion that the river and water bodies as notified by the State Government providing the rivers as boundaries of the notified area, will not take in the water bodies in and around the bird sanctuary.
16. In our considered opinion, in this regard, a reference to Section 66 of the Act, 1972 would be worthwhile and it reads thus:
"66. Repeal and savings.--
(1) As from the commencement of this Act, every other Act relating to any matter contained in this Act and in force in a State shall, to the extent to which that Act or any provision contained therein corresponds, or is repugnant, to this Act or any provision contained in this Act, stand repealed:
Provided that such repeal shall not,--
(i) affect the previous operation of the Act so repealed, or anything duly done or suffered thereunder;
(ii) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act so repealed;
(iii) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against the Act so repealed; or
(iv) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture and punishment may be imposed, as if the aforesaid Act had not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,--
(a) anything done or any action taken under the Act so repealed (including any notification, order, certificate, notice or receipt issued, application made, or permit granted) which is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act as if this Act were in force at the time such thing was done or action was taken, and shall continue to be in force, unless and W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 13 : until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act;
(b) every licence granted under any Act so repealed and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been granted under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, continue to be in force for the unexpired portion of the period for which such licence had been granted.
(3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any sanctuary or National Park declared by a State Government under any Act repealed under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a sanctuary or National Park, as the case may be, declared by the State Government under this Act and where any right in or over any land in any such National Park which had not been extinguished under the said Act, at or before the commencement of this Act, the extinguishment of such rights shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
[(4) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby further declared that where any proceeding under any provision of sections 19 to 25 (both inclusive) is pending on the date of commencement of the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 1991 any reserve forest or a part of territorial waters comprised within a sanctuary declared under section 18 to be a sanctuary before the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be a sanctuary declared under section 26A."
17. On a reading of the said provision, it is clear that from the commencement of the Act, 1972, every other Act relating to any matter contained in the Act, 1972 and in force in a State shall to the extent to which that Act or any provision contained therein corresponds or is repugnant to the Act or any provision contained in the Act stands repealed protecting any actions taken prior to the introduction of the Act, 1972. It is significant to note that Kerala Panchayat Raj Act has come into force in the year 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Livestock Farms) Rules 2012 has come into force during the year 2012. W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 14 :
18. So much so, as per Article 48(a) under part IV of the Constitution of India, the State is bound to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. That apart, clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution dealing with fundamental duties of every citizen is relevant, which stipulates 'to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. It was translating into practice the said duties, the notification is issued by the State Government.
19. In our considered opinion, the intention behind issuance of the notification under Section 18 of the Act, 1972 is to protect the sanctuary in question. Section 18 only deals with the issuance of notification on sanctuaries and therefore, Rules, 2012 could not have been issued repugnant to the provisions of the Act, 1972 which is a Central Legislation. Even though in Rule 3(4), it is specified that no person shall conduct or carry any activities in connection with the establishment of a poultry farm within the radius of 4 kms. from any of the notified water bodies by the Government where migratory birds resides, the same cannot be treated as one intended to interfere with Section 18 of the Act, 1972 and the notification issued by the State W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 15 : Government under the said provision. Apart from all these aspects, in the explanation to Rule 18 of the Act, 1972, it is absolutely made clear that it shall be sufficient to describe the areas by roads, rivers, ridges etc. On a reference to the boundaries of the bird sanctuary, it is clear that the boundary is described by rivers and its confluence.
20. The word ' confluence' is defined under the Chambers Concise Dictionary to mean "a flowing together; a meeting place especially of rivers etc. etc.". In Cambridge Advance Learner's Dictionary, it is defined as 'the place where two rivers flow together and become one larger river'. Moreover, Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2012 only states notified water bodies by the Government, but it is nowhere stated in the Rule that the notified water body is to be published by the Government by issuing a notification. Viewed in that manner, the contention advanced by the counsel for the appellants that the water body is not included in the notification issued by the Government, cannot be sustained, which thus means the requirement of Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2012 is only a water body notified so by the Government in any of its record and further publication in that regard is not required or necessitated by the said Rule. So much so, there is no force in the contention advanced by the appellants W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 16 : that water body intended under Rule 3(4) is only 'still water' as the word 'water body' literally means, because by interpreting so, no purposeful meaning could be assigned, as it could never be presumed by the Rule Making Authority that migratory birds will visit only places with still water alone. That said, in common parlance any water, whether running or still is understood and addressed as water bodies. Any meaning ascribed to the said term as is contended would be employing violence to the Rule, especially looking at the intention behind the Rule. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that, the phraseology 'water body' employed in the Rule includes rivers also.
21. It is also equally important to note that the fact finding authorities have clearly found that the licence given was in violation of Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2012 and a writ court exercising discretion need only ascertain whether there was any patent legal infirmity in the decision making process, and is never expected to sit in appeal over the factual findings rendered. It is also well settled that the administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only on the grounds of patent illegality, irrationality, perversity or action wholly without jurisdiction. W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 17 : Learned single Judge could not locate any such legal infirmities which lead to the dismissal of the writ petition. To top up, the action of the authorities are official acts presumed to be correct and valid in law and therefore, heavy burden is cast upon the appellants to prove by pleadings and supporting documents the contentions put forth by them. Evaluating and analysing the pleadings and documents, we do not think that the appellants have made out any case, to establish that the action of revoking licence is illegal and arbitrary.
22. The intention behind the Rules, 2012 and the purpose of the same is to be looked into, rather than making an attempt for a word to word analysis of the provisions in order to ascribe a meaning to the said Rule. It is clear from the descriptions that the intention is to protect the birds in the sanctuary and a purposive interpretation is to be given to the rules. Moreover, even though the learned counsel for the appellants has raised a contention that there are no migratory birds so as to cause prejudice to secure licence, in contemplation of Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2012, the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests described above would make it clear that migratory birds are visiting the Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary. Above all these aspects, appellants have never raised any W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 18 : contention or pleading including in this writ appeal that the measurement taken in compliance with Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2012 is not correct and therefore, the argument advanced without any basic pleading regarding that issue, can never be sustained under law. Therefore, it is clear that the revocation of the licence granted to the appellants by the Secretary of the Panchayat in question was in accordance with law.
23. Having evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar, we have no reason to think that the learned single Judge has not taken into account the relevant aspects to consider the case put forth by the appellants, so as to interfere in an intra- court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.
Needless to say, writ appeals fail, accordingly, they are dismissed.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 19 : APPENDIX IN W.A. No. 126 of 2017 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.08.1983 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SANTUARIES/PLACES WHERE MIGRATORY BIRDS IN KERALA.
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.08.2017 OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION.
ANNEXURE A3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A3.
ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY DY. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS DATED 13.10.2017.
ANNEXURE A4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A4.
ANNEXURE A5: COMMUNICATION OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 29.12.2016.
ANNEXURE A5(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A5.
EXHIBIT P1(a): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER DATED 26.09.2014 FORMING PART OF EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P1(b):TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER DATED 26.09.2014 FORMING PART OF EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P1(c): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE REPLY UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM ASSISTANT WILDLIFE WARDEN DATED 23.06.2014 FORMING PART OF EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P1(d): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT FORMING PART OF EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P1(e):TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 24.01.2015 FORMING PART OF EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P1(f): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 05.03.2015 FORMING PART OF EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P1(g): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY FORMING PART OF EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P1(h): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF SECRETARY IN CHARGE OF THE PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 21.03.2015 FORMING PART OF EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P1(i): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN DATED 16.10.2014 FORMING PART OF EXHIBIT W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 20 : P1.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN DATED 10.04.2015.
EXHIBIT R3(a1):TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESIDENTS OF BHOOTHANKETTU IN PINDIMANA VILLAGE DATED 30.04.2014.
EXHIBIT R3(b1): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF SECRETARY, PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 05.03.2015.
EXHIBIT R3(c1): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF SECRETARY IN CHARGE OF PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 21.03.2015.
EXHIBIT R3(d1): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE OMBUDSMAN BY P.M. SAJEEVAN DATED 15.07.2016.
EXHIBIT R3(e1): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF PROCEEDINGS OF DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DATED 29.06.2015.
ANNEXURE R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.02.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.T41/2018 DATED 20.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT WILDLIFE WARDEN ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 21 : APPENDIX IN W.A. No. 126 of 2017 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.08.1983 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SANCTUARIES/PLACES WHERE MIGRATORY BIRDS IN KERALA.
ANNEXURE R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 30.04.2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS.
ANNEXURE R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2015 RENDERED BY THIS RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R3(d): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2016 OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT.
ANNEXURE R3(e): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM.
EXHIBIT R4(a): TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 & 5 IN APPEAL NO.307/2015 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.
EXHIBIT R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3.1984/15(L.DIS) DATED 29.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P1(a): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASST. WILDLIFE WARDEN DATED 23.06.2014.
EXHIBIT P1(b):TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF LICENCE FOR CONDUCTING LIVESTOCK FARM BY PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 16.12.2014. EXHIBIT P1(c): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE APPEAL PETITION FILED BY P.M. SAJEEVAN BEFORE PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 24.01.2015.
EXHIBIT P1(d): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO T.P. RAJAN DATED 05.03.2015.
EXHIBIT P1(e):TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY T.P. RAJAN DATED 23.03.2015.
EXHIBIT P1(f): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P1(g): TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASST. WILDLIFE WARDEN DATED 16.10.2014.
W.A. Nos.126 & 1759 of 2017 : 22 :EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN DATED 10.04.2015.
EXHIBIT R3(a1):TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS DATED 30.04.2014.
EXHIBIT R3(b1): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 05.03.2015. EXHIBIT R3(c1): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF SECRETARY IN CHARGE OF PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 21.03.2015. EXHIBIT R3(d1): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF COMPLAINT FILED BY P.M. SAJEEVAN BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM DATED 15.07.2015. EXHIBIT R3(e1): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF PROCEEDINGS OF DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DATED 29.06.2015. ANNEXURE R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.02.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.T41/2018 DATED 20.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT WILDLIFE WARDEN ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ PS to Judge.