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