Kerala High Court
Augustian K.T vs State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2020
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2020 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1942
WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S)
PETITIONER:
AUGUSTIAN K.T.
AGED 54 YEARS
SAJI VILLA, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DT.-680003.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN
SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR
SRI.ARJUN SATHISH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPT.,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR-680003.
3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MAJOR IRRIGATION),
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL IRRIGATION DIVISION,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-
680020.
4 ANIL AKKARA, (DELETED)
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, M.L.A. OFFICE,
SWARAJ, PALACE ROAD, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR
DT., PIN-680582.
RESPONDENT NO.4 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS
PER ORDER DATED 29/08/2019 IN WPC.23272/2019.
ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED
WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 2
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC
ADDL. AFFAIRS (REBUILD KERALA INITIATIVE (RKI))
R4 DEPARTMENT.
ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
20/12/2019
R1-R3 BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
R1-R3 BY SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-07-2020, THE COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 3
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P.CHALY,J This is a public interest litigation filed by a resident of Thrissur District, claiming to be a public spirited person and income tax payee, contending that he is espousing the cause of numerous residents and farmers, who suffered on account of avoidable inundation caused due to negligence and apathy of respondents 1 to 3 i.e., State of Kerala, District Collector, Thrissur and Executive Engineer (Major Irrigation) Department, Thrissur, who are said to be in control of the state of affairs alleged in the writ petition.
2. Even though the Member of the Legislative Assembly concerned was the 4th respondent, he was removed from the party array having been found that he was not a necessary party at all in respect of the issues raised by the writ petitioner.
3. The case projected by the petitioner is that the natural terrain of the State of Kerala is having a slope from East to West with water from the rivers and other water bodies flowing into the Arabian Sea. As some portions of the State, especially those lying close to the water bodies are below the Mean Sea Level (MSL), various measures were being taken in the past to prevent the inflow of sea water into these areas during high tide by constructing bunds and providing regulators with sluice gates/shutters. It is WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 4 the further case of the petitioner that when the sluice gates/shutters are lowered, it would prevent the inflow of sea water into the low lying areas and when lifted during the monsoon months, the excess water in the rivers and water bodies would drain out to the sea preventing flood to low lying areas and paddy fields.
4. Thus with the aforesaid backdrop, it is submitted that there are large tracts of land below the sea-level which were reclaimed centuries ago for paddy cultivation in Thrissur District and these low lying areas are locally known as kole fields. There are three regulators in Thrissur District to regulate the inflow/outflow of water into the sea, which also ensures prevention of sea water entering into the paddy fields. Enamavu Regulator- cum-Bridge is one such regulator in Thrissur District, which is constructed across the Kanolly Canal before it meets the sea and is large enough to function as a road bridge also. It is pointed out that due to the poor maintenance and lack of upkeep, shutters of the regulator do not function in accordance with the design. Thus it is pointed out that, in order to offset the adverse effect of the non-functioning of the regulator, some years ago, a temporary earthen bund called 'Valayam Bund' was constructed on the upstream side of the regulator to stop the inflow of sea water into the Kanolly Canal. It is therefore submitted that the original plan was to demolish the temporary bund constructed with earth and reinforced with bamboo, enabling the rain water to flow freely into sea during monsoon and WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 5 after the monsoon the temporary bund would be re-build to stop the sea water entering into the kole field.
5. It is thus the case of the petitioner that the said practice prevented flooding of kole fields and the low lying areas of Thrissur District, and in order to construct the temporary bund, it is alleged that an approximate amount of Rs.40 lakhs is spent. However, since the last few years the bund was not being fully demolished and only the top portion was cut open to lower its height thus enabling the rain water to flow above the same into sea.Accordingly it is alleged that such a course of action was adopted by the authorities to aid a contractor, who regularly undertakes the job and with a further intention to aid unauthorised fish cultivation carried on by some influential persons in low lying areas.
6. It is also submitted that even though the persons, who are adversely affected, had been highlighting the adverse impact of the non- destruction of the temporary bund specified above completely and the improper functioning of the regulator, the Irrigation Department and the District Administration did not take any remedial action. It is further stated that in order to redress the grievance of such persons, the local MLA has addressed Ext.P1 letter to the District Collector requesting to redress the grievance of the people adversely affected by demolishing the temporary bund during monsoon, the respondents have not taken any action and consequent to which in the monsoon of 2018, there was unprecedented WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 6 flooding in low lying areas of Thrissur District. However, the 2nd and 3rd respondents defended themselves stating that the flood had occurred due to the opening of the dams situated upstream of Kanolly river. Anyhow it is stated that later the bund was removed completely, and the flood water immediately receded.
7. Matters were being so, during July 2019, the local MLA submitted Ext.P2 letter before the District Collector to demolish the bund re- constructed after the monsoon, as heavy rains were anticipated, according to the petitioner, no action was initiated and due to the heavy rain during August, 2019 all low lying areas in Thrissur District and the kole fields submerged in water. Thereupon thousands of families had to be evacuated, and business establishments also suffered huge loss. But the 2nd and 3rd respondents refused to demolish the temporary bund in spite of the public protest and request of the elected representative. Exts.P3 & P4 are series of photographs produced to show the flood situation in residential areas and the water flowing through the Kanolly Canal and in one of the photographs, the Minister for Agriculture, Government of Kerala, who represents a Legislative Assembly of Thrissur district is also seen. According to the petitioner, it was due to the hue and cry made by the public, the Hon'ble Minister visited the site using a country boat. The newspaper dated 15 th August, 2019 is produced as Ext.P5.
8. It is also contended that during the conference held to review the WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 7 flood situation in the District, Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department informed the Minister that the temporary bund was demolished while actually only two small portions of the bund at either ends were cut open. Later when the Minister realised it, the site was visited and ordered the respondents to fully demolish the temporary bund, in order to facilitate free flow of rainwater into the sea. However, since the authorities failed to demolish the bund, newspaper reports appeared in the vernacular daily, produced as Ext.P6 and then the Hon'ble Minister visited the site and supervised demolition of the temporary bund and the water receded immediately.The news reports in regard to the same appeared are produced as Exts.P7 to P9. It is also pointed out that the local MLA addressed the Minister, evident from Ext.P10 highlighting that the authorities of the irrigation department are instrumental in causing flood. However, according to the petitioner, in spite of all these earnest efforts, no steps are taken to regulate the inundation during the heavy monsoon anticipated in the ensuing monsoon i.e, 2020, by demolishing the bund, which according to the petitioner, will cause unimaginable flooding in low lying areas of Thrissur District, especially when the weather forecast is that the monsoon will be heavy. With this background, the followings reliefs are sought for by the petitioner
9. A counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent Executive Engineer disputing the contentions raised by the petitioner, and also WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 8 submitting that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner to quash the decision to annually re-construct/demolish the temporary bund cannot be sustained for scientific and other reasons. Anyhow it is stated therein that steps are being taken by the Government to repair and maintain the shutters of Enamavu Regulator-cum-Bridge before the next monsoon season. Documents are also produced along with the counter affidavit to substantiate that the bund constructed at Enamavu with an average width of 2.50m can hold water at a level of 1.10m and the bund is having a length of 221m formed in semi circle to suit the site condition, by which only it is called 'Valayam' bund.
10. It is further submitted that the water distribution to the kole lands commences in the month of December and closes in the month of May every year. The bund is constructed in the month of November after the North East Monsoon with a completion time of one month. The removal of bund is also included in the contract and carried out in the month of June every year before the onset of South West monsoon normally. The Enamavu Regulator-cum-Bridge was constructed in the year 1963 and due to the leakage along the bed of regulator, the efficiency of the regulator deteriorated and since it is not water tight, an estimate has already been submitted to the Government for the renovation of the regulator for an amount of Rs.732 lakhs under "Rebuild Kerala Initiative (RKI) - Post Flood Repair and Maintenance of Dams".
WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 9
11. That apart it is submitted that the temporary bund is constructed between kole lands and the Enamavu Regulator-cum-Bridge for preventing the salt water intrusion to the Kole lands through the damaged regulator. The Irrigation Department is spending money for the irrigation of 13000 hectares of kole lands and the temporary bund is required during summer season every year until the renovation of the regulator-cum-bridge is complete. That apart it is pointed out that the construction and removal of the temporary bunds was tendered as per the departmental rules and regulations, and each year several persons participated in the bid and it was accordingly that the work of the bund was being carried out and also demolished by the successful bidder. It is also submitted that the bund is partially removed every year as per the estimate provision and the removal of the bund was being done before the onset of monsoon season.
12. It is further submitted that the shutters and lock gate of the regulator-cum-bride are being kept open in July 2019 itself, thus ensuring free flow of water from kole lands to the Kanolly Canal, which has the link with the sea. However, due to the unprecedented monsoon of yester years, the flow of water through Kanolly Canal became restricted thus causing inundation, and it has also not receded as expected. That apart it is stated that temporary bund can hold water upto a height of 110cms only, and during the period of water distribution from December to May, the maximum water level maintained within this bund is 100 cms., which is requisite for WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 10 the supply of water to all Kole fields by regulating the sluice and the shutters.Even Though the practice was being followed for several years , there was no flooding and therefore, it can only be analysed that the flooding during the years 2018 & 2019 have occurred due to the unprecedented monsoon.
13. Anyhow an additional statement is also filed by the Executive Engineer dated 10.6.2020 stating that taking note of the weather reports appropriate action shall be taken by the 3 rd respondent to demolish the bund in accordance with the terms of contract, and at present in accordance with the report of the Meteorological Department, rain in Thrissur is deficient. Anyhow it is submitted that the Government machinery will take appropriate action at the appropriate time to demolish the bund, thus avoiding inundation in the low lying areas of Thrissur District. It is also submitted that the entire team responsible for the management of the bund are very vigilant and keenly observing the situation, and will demolish the temporary bund completely if it requires to be demolished taking into account the quantity of rainfall, fresh water level in the kole land, and the salt water pressure from the seaward side of the bund. However at present there are no reasons for any apprehension of flooding in the area due to the existence of earthen bund.
14. Various documents are also produced including the rainfall gauged by the Indian Meteorological Department starting from 1 st March 2020 to WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 11 31st May, 2020 and 1st June, 2020 to 10th June, 2020, evident from Annexures R2(a) and R2(b). Annexure R3(c) is a District-wise weekly rainfall report starting from 4.6.2020 to 10.6.2020 and also showing the seasons rainfall from 1.6.2020 to 10.6.2020. According to the said report, there is a deficient rainfall of -53% and -40% in Thrissur District. Ext.R3(d) is a summary of weather for Kerala, Mahe & Lakshadweep wherein it is stated that there would be deficient rain in the districts of Alappuzha, Ernakulam, Idukki, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta, Thrissur and Wayanad Districts during the aforesaid period prescribed. Annexure R3(e) is a District-wise rainfall distribution prepared by the Meteorological Department throughout India, district wise, and it is recorded that the rainfall would be deficient by -53% and -40% respectively during the aforesaid period in Thrissur. Other information bulletins issued by the Meteorological Department are also produced to establish that as of now the apprehension voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition has no scientific basis.
15. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 17.6.2017 basically reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also producing Ext.P12 paper report stating that the demolition of the temporary bund would begin from the date of the newspaper report i.e., 26.5.2020. It is also submitted that the report appeared in the newspaper consequent to the steps taken by the local MLA, and is the outcome of the discussions made with the District Collector, Thrissur. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P13 chart apparently WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 12 downloaded from internet showing the performance of South West monsoon during 2017, 2018 and 2019 in order to contend and canvass that during those years also, the Meteorological Department, recorded deficient rainfall, however situation changed due to climatic and scientific reasons and all on a sudden heavy monsoon started and thus the situation became uncontrollable for the respondents to demolish the temporary bund. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that, unless and until emergent steps are taken to demolish the bund now itself, respondents would not be able to do the same due to the flood situation.
16. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.Karunakaran.C.K., learned Senior Government Pleader Sri P.Narayanan, and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
17. Learned counsel for petitioner basically addressed arguments in accordance with the submissions made above and further submitted that unless and until a peremptory direction is issued by this Court to demolish the temporary bund, the inundation of the years 2018 and 2019 would be replicated during the year 2020, taking into account the typical climatic conditions evaluated during the previous years as aforesaid.
18. Learned Senior Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the District Collector as well as the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department have analysed the situation projected by the petitioner in the WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 13 writ petition taking into account the weather forecast and the information bulletin issued by the Meteorological Department of India and in order to resolve any adverse situation, the machinery is in place. But if the temporary bund is demolished now, there is every likelihood of water scarcity during the summer season. It is also pointed out that the allegation made by the petitioner that the temporary bund was demolished only partially to aid the contractor is a baseless contention advanced without any material on record, and so also the contract for construction and demolition of the temporary bund was being entered in such a manner to remove top portion of the bund to ensure free flow of excess rain water into the Kanolly Canal. That apart it is submitted that, petitioner is a business man and the attempt of the petitioner is not with the intention of protecting the interest of the farmers, and not even a single farmer has come forward with any such grievance .It is also pointed out that for several decades, the same procedure was being adopted by the Irrigation Department.
19. So also it is submitted that flooding occurred during 2018 & 2019 due to unexpected and unprecedented rain and consequential opening up of the dams situated upstream of Kanolly Canal. That apart it is submitted that a public interest litigant approaching the constitutional court should produce necessary documents before the Court in order to establish the contentions put forth. Anyhow it is submitted that the Department have made all arrangements to open the shutters of the regulators completely and to WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 14 remove the temporary bund wholly, by starting the work from last week of May 2020 and to complete by the first week of June 2020, but subject to the deficient rain forecast made by the Meteorological Department.
20. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. In our considered opinion, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner during the year 2019, petitioner was pointing out the deficiencies on the part of the District Collector as well as the Executive Engineer to remove the temporary bund ensuring free flow of water taking into account heavy monsoon that hit the entire State of Kerala and consequential flood situation in various parts of the State and on the basis of the year 2018. Anyhow from the counter affidavit and additional statements, and the data analysis of the Meteorological Department, at present there is deficient rainfall in Thrissur District. The weather forecast data bulletins are prepared by the experts taking into account various scientific factors, past and present climatic conditions, atmospheric temperature at a given place, cloud and applying technology by human intervention, and it is accordingly that the respondents have submitted that if the temporary bund is demolished as per the data available, there would be scarcity of water to cater the needs of the farmers. It cannot be disputed that the administrators plan and coordinate the various human activities,farming,outdoor recreations etc depending on the weather forecast, and therefore the weather forecast bulletins have a very vital and significant role to play in everyday activities of WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 15 human life. It is always said, and also scientifically proven that even animals and birds prepare themselves in accordance with the climatic conditions. Said so, there can be no doubt that the administrators need to have a balanced plan and a comprehensive approach for management of men and matters, failing which there could be umpteen number of adverse situations. Needless to say, many a time there would be situations beyond comprehension, and due to shortage of rainfall, human life, nature, environment as a whole and animal life will be put to peril.Which thus also means preservation of water and management of the same is a key factor to be undertaken by the State in order to use it resourcefully and to the maximum advantage of all concerned. Therefore looking from the administrators angle,only by anticipating and coordinating various aspects, decisions are to be taken. The case at hand is one such situation, and accordingly taking into account the deficient rainfall predicted by the meteorological department in Thrissur district, the State has to adjust to that reality and prepare itself. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the decision to take quick action if and when situation warrants due to any unprecedented rainfall, is bad in any manner.
21. Summing up the issues so, we are of the perspicacious opinion, we cannot overlook the findings and evaluations made by the technical experts,and the consequential steps taken by the government, and issue directions to the respondents to demolish the temporary bund. We are also WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 16 of the opinion that a constitutional court, without sufficient materials on record is not expected to sit over the expert and technical opinions and substitute with its own findings. Be that as it may, in view of the undertaking made in the affidavit as well as in the statements that, State machinery is watchful bearing in mind the flood situations of the years 2018 & 2019, and the entire machinery is in place to meet any contingency and remove the bund on a war footing, we record the same.Therefore when the State officials have expressed confidence in controlling the flood consequent to any unprecedented monsoon rainfall, we are of the view that the State machinery would do the necessary in order to eliminate any apprehension voiced by the petitioner, which by itself is a duty and obligation undertaken by the government and we have no reason to think that it would not discharge the same. We also find force in the contention advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the public interest highlighted by the petitioner in the writ petition is doubtful. If the farmers have suffered any consequence due to the flood that have occurred during the past two years, they would have definitely approached the statutory authorities or any legal fora for ventilating their grievances in respect of the temporary bund. So much so there are no materials produced to substantiate the contention that flooding occurred due the failure to remove the bund enabling this court to act upon and grant the relief of removal of the bund.Being so,petitioner has failed to discharge the well settled and the WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 17 predominant factor in public interest jurisprudence that the vital pleadings should be supported by necessary proof. A reference to some of the decisions of the apex court in that regard would be worthwhile.
22. In S.P. Anand, Indore vs H.D. Deve Gowda & Others [1996 (6) SCC 734], it is held that "it is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed".
23. In Guruvaryoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another v. C.K. Rajan and others [(2003) 7 SCC 546], it was held by the Apex Court that "the courts exercising their power of judicial review found to their dismay that the poorest of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate, the urban and rural unorganised labour sector, women, children, those handicapped by 'ignorance, indigence and illiteracy' and other down trodden have either no access to justice or had been denied justice. A new branch of proceedings known as 'social action litigation' or 'public interest iitigation' was evolved with a view to render complete justice to the aforementioned classes of persons.".
24. In Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, the word 'public interest' is defined as something in which the public as a whole has a stake, especially an interest that justifies governmental regulation. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 18 matters in question.
25. More over petitioner has no case that prior to 2018 flooding occurred in low lying areas in spite of the existence of the temporary bund, which would to a large extent exemplifies that the inundation had occurred due to unexpected monsoon during the years 2018 and2019. It is true the local MLA have submitted representations before the District Collector highlighting that necessary steps shall be taken to demolish the temporary bund. However, that by itself cannot be taken as a conclusive aspect by the authorities, especially due to the fact that, during summer the interest of the farmers carrying out agricultural activities in the kole fields have also to be protected by the respondents.
26. Thinking so, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of direction to remove the temporary bund as is sought for. However, it is an admitted fact that shutters of the regulator- cum-bridge are in damaged condition, and there is water leakage through the shutters which in fact necessitated the respondents to construct the temporary bund. It is also evident from the counter affidavit and the statements that steps were being taken by the Government during the year 2019 itself to carry out the repairs of the regulator, but for the reasons best known to the Government, no steps were taken to rectify the defects even though in the counter affidavit it is stated that after the monsoon of 2019 steps would be taken to complete the repair. Hence it is only appropriate WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 19 that necessary directions are issued to that extent.
27. Therefore there would be a direction to the respondents to take necessary steps to carry out the repairs of the regulator-cum-bridge in question at the earliest possible and complete the same before the monsoon of 2021. The rest of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are in respect of enquiry into the non-demolition of temporary bund, constitution of an expert committee to study the non-maintenance of the regulator etc., but in view of the findings rendered above, at present,the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.Even while holding so, we make it clear that if and when any adverse situation arises consequent to any unprecedented rains and likelihood of flooding, immediate and emergent steps shall be taken by the respondents to ensure free flow of water unhindered by the temporary bund in question so as to avoid any flood situation based on the same.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 20
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.7.2017 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.7.2019 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE FLOODING CAUSED BY
THE NON-DEMOLITION OF VALAYAM BUND.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING CONOLLY CANAL
OVERFLOWING ITS BANKS AND THE RESULTANT
FLOODING.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE EXTRACT OF NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED 15.
AUGUST, 2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5.
EXHIBIT P6 NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED 13 AUGUST, 2019.
EXHIBIT P6 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE EXTRACT OF NEW PAPER REPORT DATED 13
AUGUST, 2019 REPORTING MINISTER'S ORDER TO
FULLY DEMOLISH THE VALAYAM BUND.
EXHIBIT P7 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE EXTRACT OF NEW PAPER REPORT DATED 14
AUGUST, 2019 SHOWING THE MINISTER
PERSONALLY SUPERVISING THE DEMOLITION OF
VALAYAM BUND.
EXHIBIT P8 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE EXTRACT OF NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED 17
AUGUST, 2019 SHOWING THE DEMOLITION OF
VALAYAM BUND USING BARGE MOUNTED EXCAVATOR.
EXHIBIT P9 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P9.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.8.2019 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P10.
WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 21
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE STATUS OF THE
VALAYAM BUND AS ON 6TH JUNE,2020.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE A NEWSPAPER REPORT THAT
APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWSPAPER
OF 26 MAY 2020, ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF CHARS SHOWING THE PERFORMANCE
OF THE SOUTH-WEST MONSOON IN KERALA AND IN
TRISSUR DT, DURING THE YEARS 2017, 2018 AND
2019.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE EXTRACTS OF RELEVANT PORTIONS FROM THE
COCHIN STATE MANUAL.
EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON 12 JUNE, 2020 SHOWING
THE PILLA BUND.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
DATED 25/5/2020 HELD BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, TRISSUR
EXHIBIT P16A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P16
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER OF THE
VENKIDANGU GRAMA PANCHAYATH AUTHORITIES
NO.CI-668/17 DATED 07/06/2017.
EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/06/2017
ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF MANALOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 15/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTS IN THE MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED 02/07/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 E TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTS IN THE MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED 04/07/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 F TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTS PUBLISHED IN THE
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 11/07/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 G TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED 20/07/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 H TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT RELATED TO ABOVE IN
THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED
21/07/2019.
WP(C).No.23272 OF 2019(S) 22
EXHIBIT R3 I TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT RELATED TO ABOVE IN
THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED
14/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 J TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN THE MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED 17/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 K TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED 28/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 L TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE KLDC
TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR FROM THE
DIFFERENT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS.
EXHIBIT R3 M TRUE COPY OF THE REPOERT OF THE MALAYALA
MANORAMA DATED 11/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 N TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN MALAYALA
MANORAMA DATED 24/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 O TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED ON 17/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 P TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED ON 18/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 Q TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED ON 19/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 R TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED ON 30/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 S TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN THE MATHRUBHUMI
DAILY DATED ON 15/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 T TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN THE MATHRUBHUMI
DAILY DATED ON 25/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 U TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED ON 13/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 V TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE DETAILS
OF RELIEF CAMPS AT THE AREA DURING FLOOD
DATED 17/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R3 W TRUE COPY OF THE REINFALL DETAILS OBTAINED
FROM HYDROLOGY.
EXHIBIT R3 X TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WORKS PROPOSED
UNDER REBUILD KERALA INITIATIVE IN RELATION
TO FLOOD 2018.