Preman V vs The Kerala State Handicapped ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1237 Ker

W.P.(C) No. 27394/2020               :1:


                 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 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.27394 OF 2020(Y)

PETITIONER/S:

                PREMAN V.,
                AGED 42 YEARS
                S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, PANGOTTUEMELE ROADARIKATHU
                PUTHENVEEDU, ANTHIYOORKONAM, KATTAKKADA, TRIVANDRUM.
                BY ADVS.
                SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
                SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN
                SMT.SHARON S.V.

RESPONDENT/S:

        1       THE KERALA STATE HANDICAPPED PERSONS WELFARE
                CORPORATION LTD.
                REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, POOJAPURA,
                TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.

        2       THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                THE KERALA STATE HANDICAPPED PERSONS WELFARE
                CORPORATION LTD., POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.

        3       THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PANCHAYATH
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O.,
                TRIVANDRUM - 695 004.

        4       THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PANCHAYATH
                PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 004.

        5       MOITHEENKUTTY K.
                PRESENTLY MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE
                HANDICAPPED PERSONS' WELFARE CORPORATION LTD.,
 W.P.(C) No. 27394/2020               :2:


                POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 012 (EO NOMINE).
        6       SUBASH V.
                PRESENTLY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
                PANCHAYATH, PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 004 (EO NOMINE).
        7       KERALA UPA LOK AYUKTA
                REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK
                AYUKTA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
                R1, R2 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
                R3& R4 BY SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2021,
      THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 27394/2020               :3:




                  Dated this the 13th day of January, 2021.

                                   JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

This writ petition is filed by a differently abled person challenging

Ext.P21 interim order, and Ext. P22 order dismissing the complaint by

the Upa LokAyukta dated 16.11.2020 respectively.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as

follows:

The petitioner has filed a complaint before the Upa LokAyukta

against the shifting of a Manufacturing, Repairing, Servicing and

Training on Aids and Appliances Centre (MRSTC) functioning under the

Kerala State Handicapped persons Welfare Corporation Ltd- the 1st

respondent, from Pattoor in Trivandrum city to Parassala on the

outskirts of the Trivandrum District and to investigate into the

corruption in the first respondent Corporation. The complaint consisted

of the allegations as well as the grievance as provided under Sections

2(b) and 2(h) of the Kerala Lokayukta Act, 1999 ('Act, 1999' for

short). According to the petitioner, in view of the serious corruption

allegations made, it required investigation and decision on merits.

Even though initially a stay was granted restraining the shifting of the

manufacturing and repairing unit, the complaint was dismissed

summarily placing reliance on the order vacating the stay in the

interlocutory application. It is also submitted that the interlocutory

application was dismissed relying on Ext.P18 undertaking given by the

Managing Director of the Kerala State Handicapped persons Welfare

Corporation Limited that the MRSTC is only a manufacturing and

repairing unit and the beneficiaries need not go to the unit at Parassala

for collecting new equipments and getting their used ones repaired. It

was further undertaken that the beneficiaries will be distributed new

equipments and give their equipments repaired through the Head

Office at Trivandrum and also through regional offices at Ernakulam

and Kozhikode and the Corporation will continue to carry out the

periodical camps at other District Centres for the said purposes as

usual.

3. The contention advanced by the writ petitioner is that in view

of Ext.P3 letter addressed by the Managing Director of the Corporation

to the office of the Minister for Social Justice, the differently abled

beneficiaries were already finding it difficult to come to the Head Office

of the first respondent Corporation at Poojappura and then go to

Pattoor to collect the equipment. In Ext.P3, it was also stated that the

Technical Committee appointed by the Government found that the

Manufacturing unit must be shifted to Poojappura for effective

supervision by the Head Office. Further, Ext.R1(d), produced before

the Upa Lokayukta and produced in the writ Petition as Ext.P15 dated

28.12.2018, granted administrative sanction for strengthening the

MRSTC workshop and the said Government Order clearly stated that

the proposal was for strengthening the workshop and setting up of

showrooms with sufficient space to accommodate the Regional Office

of the Corporation for assistive devices where suppliers could exhibit

their products at bulk discounted price and on credit basis and where

the beneficiaries could choose any brand of their choice, but at prices

much lower than the market. Therefore, according to the writ

petitioner, the said Government order clearly specifies that the

proposal and the administrative sanction is only for strengthening the

workshop and the Corporation is not entitled to shift the workshop to

the outskirts of Thiruvananthapuram and the attempt to shift is

nothing but abuse of position,corruption,personal interest, improper

and corrupt motives, favouritism, nepotism and lack of integrity on the

part of the the Managing director of the ist respondent Corporation-

the 5th respondent, and the Secretary of the District Panchayat- the

6th respondent.

4. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that

the learned Upa Lokayukta failed to notice this obvious fact evident

from the records of the respondents themselves and that the summary

dismissal of the complaint based on Ext. P21 order in the interlocutory

application is illegal and violative of the provisions of the Act, 1999.

5. Respondents 1, 2 and 5 namely the Corporation and the

Managing Director in their official capacity and in person have filed a

detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and

demands raised by the petitioner and submitting that the

Manufacturing, Repairing, Servicing & Training on Aids & Appliances

Centre (MRSTC) is a unit owned by Kerala State Handicapped Persons

Welfare Corporation Limited. It was started in 2000 for producing aids

and appliances for the differently abled persons viz., Tricycle,

Wheelchair, Crutches, Walker, CP Chair etc. Since its inception, it has

been located at Pattoor, Trivandrum in a rented building. The building

owner Smt. Jayasree Ramesh has requested the 5th respondent to

vacate the premises vide her letter dated 21.11.2016, evident from

Exhibit.R1(a).

6. Thereafter, the Corporation took earnest efforts for locating a

suitable Building/place for shifting MRSTC at Poojappura nearby Head

Office premises. However, no place suitable for the workshop could be

found. Thereupon, the Board of Directors of KSHPWC, in its meeting

held on 21/01/2017, entrusted the Chairman to find a suitable place

for MRSTC, evident from Exhibit-R1(b). Accordingly, the Chairman

discussed the matter with the President, District Panchayat,

Thiruvananthapuram and the District Panchayath granted permission

to shift MRSTC from Pattoor to District Panchayath building at

Kottamam, adjacent to Saphalayam Old Age Home, exclusively built

for starting Limb Fitting Centre for differently abled people. The

Government have accorded administrative sanction for the

modernization of MRST during 2016-2017 vide G.O (Rt.)

No.665/2017/SJD, dated 10.10.2017, evident from Exhibit. R1(c).

Since the modernization was not possible in the present premises due

to the demand of vacating made by the landlord and also due to the

space constraints, the Management of the first respondent has taken

all possible efforts to find out a suitable place for shifting of MRSTC.

Accordingly, the 5th respondent executed Exhibit P2 agreement dated

30-01-2019 with the Secretary, District Panchayat,

Thiruvananthapuram, the 3rd respondent herein. The Government had

also issued G.O. (Rt.) No. 757/2018/SJD insisting on timely

compliance of the project, evident from Exhibit. R1(d). As the

Government has insisted timely completion of the project, the 1 st

Respondent Corporation signed agreement with KEL as an accredited

agency empanelled as per G.O(P) No. 95/2017 Fin dated 25/7/2017

and G.O.(P) No. 118/2018 Fin. dated 3-8-2018. Accordingly, Project

Management Consultancy agreement for shifting the unit and

procuring new sophisticated machinery and equipment was executed

with KEL as per the agreement dated 19-08-2019 produced as Exhibit

R1(e). Ext. P2 was executed on 30/1/2019 and KEL has been

appointed as Project Management Consultant (PMC) on 01-02-2019

and the work is in progress.

7. It is also submitted that the Board of Directors, in its

meeting, held on 23-12-2017 unanimously decided to shift the MRST

unit to Kottamam, evident from Ext.R1(b). The 5 th Respondent, in his

capacity as the Managing Director of the 1st respondent, is responsible

to act as per the Board's Decision. There are no hasty steps or abuse

of position, corruption or lack of integrity on the part of any of the

respondents in shifting the unit from Pattoor. It is an absolute

necessity considering the welfare of the differently abled persons at

large. The complainant has vexatious and vested interests in that

regard. The complainant is a person, who creates constant obstacles in

the smooth functioning of the 1st Respondent Corporation. The

Chairman of the 1st Respondent was constrained to make a criminal

complaint against the petitioner and the Poojappura police has

registered a Crime as No: 0803/2019 and the same is pending

investigation. Ext.R1(f) is the copy of the FIR in Poojappura Police

Station Crime No:803/19.

8. The allegations of abuse of position, corruption, personal

interest, improper and corrupt motives, favouritism,personal interest,

nepotism, and lack of integrity on the part of the 5 th and 6th

respondent are all denied.

9. It is further submitted that MRSTC is producing various aids

and appliances for differently abled people like Tricycle, Wheelchair,

Crutches, Walker, CP Chair etc. There is no need for differently abled

people all over Kerala to go to the manufacturing unit for receiving

appliances. KSHPWC is having Regional Offices in Kochi and Kozhikode

in order to clear the needs of persons in those regions. There is no

need for differently abled persons to collect the aids directly from the

workshop. The aids and appliances will be supplied from the Head

Office also. KSHPWC conducts Medical Camps in all Districts and

through Regional Offices in Ernakulam and Calicut, distributes aids and

appliances to all the needy persons. Moreover, as per G.O (Rt.) No.

658/2019/SJD dated 15/10/2020, the Government have issued

administrative sanction for setting up of a showroom for the

distribution and sale of such appliances in the Head Office itself.

10. It is further submitted that there is a change in the scenario

which existed as on issuance of Exhibit P3. It is after Exhibit P3 that

the Government accorded sanction for modernization of MRSTC on 10-

10-2017 as per G.O.(Rt.) 665/2017/SJD. Further, as per G.O. (Rt) No:

658/2019/SJD dated 15-10-2020, the Government has accorded

sanction for setting up a showroom for distribution and sales of

Appliances in the Head Office itself. Therefore, according to the

respondents, Exhibit P3 has presently no significance at all and the

complaint, which is based on Exhibit P3, has to necessarily be rejected

as has been rightly done by the Lok Ayukta. As the Government have

denied the request made in Exhibit P3 therein vide Ext.R1(g) letter No:

120/D2/16/SJD dated nil -06-2017, the complaint based on Exhibit P-

3 is totally unsustainable in facts and law, it is contended.

11. It is further submitted that the building owner of the

MRSTC, Pattoor, Smt. Jayasree Ramesh, has requested vide Ext R1(a)

to vacate the building, as she intends to renovate the building. Further,

it is submitted that the existing building was in a highly dilapidated

condition and the structural engineers have suggested demolition of

the building. Since the unit is running in heavy loss, the Government

has sanctioned Rs. 2 Crores vide Ext R1(c) for modernizing the unit

and thereby, improving the quality of products. It is pertinent to note

that Ext.P3 was not acted upon by the Government.

12. According to the respondents, there is no corruption in any

actions resorted to by respondents 5 and 6 and it is a Government

decision to modernize the unit. Administrative sanction was issued

during 2016-2017. But, the agreement was signed on 31/01/2019 with

District Panchayath and entrusted KEL, an accredited agency and a

Public Sector Undertaking as PMC on 19/08/2019. All the institutions

involved in the transitions are controlled by the Government. It is

practically impossible to finish the project in a time bound manner by

opting a space where there is no suitable building to house the unit.

13. The news reports do not reflect the reason for shifting of the

unit or the true facts. The condition of the present building is

dangerous as it is unfit for its age. Further, in Ext P5, the Chairman of

the Corporation has stated the true facts.

14. There is no element of corruption or maladministration in

the matter of shifting of the unit from Pattoor to Kottamam. Such a

shifting will not put the differently abled persons under suffering,

difficulty, hardship and pain as alleged. No differently abled person

need to go to Kottamam for collecting any of the products.The

averments in paragrpahs 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 related to

the proceeding before the Lokayukta are all denied. However, even in

the aforesaid paragraphs, the same facts have been twisted and

distorted with ulterior motives.

15. It is submitted that the Government has released the funds

and the Board of Directors had decided to shift the Unit accordingly. It

is the responsibility of the Managing Director to act in accordance with

the Government directions and there is no personal interest, improper

and corrupt motives as alleged by the petitioner, it is submitted.

16. It is also submitted that Road & Railway are very near to the

proposed place. Dhanuvachapuram Railway Station is only at a

walkable distance from the unit. The maintenance of the building is

done by the District Panchayat. There is no merits in contending that

the whole process is being undertaken to misappropriate Rs. 2 Crores

sanctioned for the manufacturing unit. The actions of the complainant

would only hinder the upliftment of the physically differently abled

persons of the State. Rs. 10,000/- received for the Covid 19 pandemic

has also been expended and utilisation certificate has been sent to

NHFDC.

17. It is also stated that Exhibit P20 is a subsequent

development, which has any bearing on the complaint at all. Exhibit

P20 is a totally different aspect which cannot be permitted to be

raised in the Writ Petition. There is no vested interest behind this

shifting. It is done only for the modernization and enhancement of

quality of products of the MRSTC Unit. The Government has directed

respondents 1, 2 and 5 to take steps to shift the MRST unit within 1

month as per Ext.R1(h) communication dated 13-10-2020.

18. According to the respondents, they have acted with good

faith and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. There is no

maladministration as alleged on the part of any of the respondents

and therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

19. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. C.

Unnikrishnan and Sri. T.K. Vipindas for respondents 1, 2 and 5 and Sri.

Thomas Abraham for Thiruvananthapuram District Panchayat who are

respondents 3 and 4, and perused the pleadings and materials on

record.

20. The basic contention of the petitioner is that Ext. P21 order

vacating the interim order granted staying the shifting of the MRSTC

from Thiruvananthapuram to Poojappura is violative of the orders

passed by the Government namely Ext.R1(d) Government Order dated

28.12.2018. The said order reads thus:

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

Abstract

Social Justice Department-Kerala State Handicapped Persons Welfare Corporation-Proposal for strengthening the MRST Workshop and setting up of showrooms for assistive devices-Administrative Sanction accorded-Orders issued.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL JUSTICE (D) DEPARTMENT

G.O.(Rt.) No. 757/2018/SJD. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram 28.12.2018

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read: 1. Proposal submitted by Managing Director, Kerala State Handicapped Persons Welfare Corporation.

2. Minutes of the Working Group meeting held on 25.09.2018.

3. Letter No. 1948/a5/18/HPWC dated 26.12.2018 from the Managing Director, Kerala State Handicapped Persons Welfare Corporation.

ORDER

The Managing Director, Kerala State Handicapped Persons Welfare Corporation has submitted a proposal for strengthening the MRST Workshop and setting up of show rooms (with sufficient space to accommodate the regional office of the Corporation) for assistive devices where suppliers could exhibit their products at bulk discounted price and on credit basis and where the beneficiaries could choose any brand of their choice, but at prices much lower than the market. The estimated cost of the proposal is for an amount of Rs.250.00 lakh (Rupees Two Crores and Fifty lakhs only) as detailed below:

 Sl.     Scheme                                                         Amount
 No.                                                                    proposed (Rs.
                                                                        in lakh)
 1       Shubhayathra-Strengthen the MRST Workshop                      110.00
 2       Thanal-setting up of show rooms for assistive devices          140.00
         Total                                                          250.00

2. The Working Group meeting held on 25.09.2018 considered the proposal and approved the same subject to certain conditions.

3. Government examined the matter in detail and are pleased to accord administrative sanction to the proposal for strengthening the MRST Workshop and setting up of showrooms (with sufficient space to accommodate the regional office of the Corporation) for assistive devices where suppliers could exhibit their products at bulk discounted price and on credit basis and where the beneficiaries could choose any brand of their choice, but at prices much lower than the market, submitted by Managing Director, Kerala State Handicapped Persons Welfare Corporation for an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Fifty Lakhs only) under the Head of Account 4235-02-190-99 in the

current years budget subject to the following conditions:

*Corporation should ensure timely completion.

*The previous year allocation and current year allocation use compiling.

*Instructions in G.O.(Rt) No. 118/18/Fin. Should be strictly adhered to.

By order of the Governor,

BIJU PRABHAKAR IAS

Special Secretary.

21. The contention advanced by the petitioner is that the

Government has passed the order to strengthen the workshop and for

setting up of showrooms with sufficient space to accommodate the

regional office of the Corporation for assistive devices where suppliers

could exhibit their products at bulk discounted price and on credit

basis and where the beneficiaries could choose any brand of their

choice. Anyhow, the Government has taken a decision to shift the

unit to Parassala to have adequate space for the functioning of the unit

and accordingly directed the corporation as perExt R1 (h) order dated

13- 10- 2020. Matters being so, it cannot be said that the

respondents have not acted in good faith and there is any

maladministration in shifting the unit. Merely because steps were

taken to shift the unit in order to meet up with the requirements of the

establishment, no manner of corruption or maladministration can be

attributed against the Government or the Corporation.

22. It is also clearly discernible from the inputs provided by the

corporation that the building at present occupied by the unit is in a

dilapidated condition and the owner of the building has sought for

vacating the premises . The said aspect is not disputed at all. Apart

from the above, it cannot be said that the rights of differently abled

persons are affected merely because the unit is shifted to a convenient

place of the corporation to support its manufacturing activities in an

efficient manner.

23. In our view, Upa Lokayukta is vested with ample powers

under the Act, 1999 to dismiss the complaint, if it is found to be a

frivolous one. This we say because, in the complaint there is no

specific allegation of corruption or maladministration or personal gain

secured by the 5th respondent in the matter, nor any documents are

produced to substantiate the omnibus allegations. We are also of the

firm view that mere apprehensions of misuse of money cannot by itself

be converted into a charge of corruption or maladministration. That

said, in order to proceed with a complaint the Upa Lokayukta should

be satisfied that there are sufficient materials in order to be relied

upon and proceed with the complaint, which is the fundamental

scheme of the Act, 1999.

24. Moreover, going by Section 9 of Act, 1999, if the

Lokayukta is convinced that there are no materials before it to

investigate in accordance with law and that it is a frivolous and

vexatious one, it is liberty to decline jurisdiction. So also, in our view,

the preliminary inquiry is nothing but a fair and reasonable satisfaction

attained by it on going through the complaint and the documents

before it . Section 9 (3) of the act makes it clear that only if the Upa

LokAyukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he

deems fit to conduct any investigation under the act alone he needs to

issue any notice. Which thus means, merely because notice was issued

to the respondents, it will not preclude him to conduct any preliminary

inquiry as to whether it should conduct any investigation. This we say

because the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act provides sufficient

leverage to him to do so and just because no preliminary inquiry was

conducted before issuing notice that will not take away the power

conferred on him under law to attain such satisfaction at a later point

of time after providing opportunity to the parties .

25. Again Section 9(5) of the Act, 1999 enables the Upa

Lokayukta at its discretion to refuse to investigate or discontinue

investigation of any complaint if the complaint is frivolous or vexatious

or is not made in good faith or there are no sufficient grounds for

investigating or, as the case may be for continuing the investigation.

Above all, it is clear and evident from the counter affidavit that the

Corporation has received substantial loan amounts from the National

Handicapped Finance and Development Corporation on the basis of a

guarantee offered by the State Government, which, if not repaid on

the terms and conditions, the guarantee would be revoked. That apart,

the disbursal of further loan amounts would depend on the utilisation

of the amounts already disbursed .

26. Taking into account all the above aspects, in our considered

view, no manner of corruption or other illegalities can be attributed

against the Corporation and its officials, since in the Government

Order dated 28.12.2018, it is not stated that the workshop is to be

conducted at Poojappura itself and it cannot be shifted to any other

place, but on the other hand, Government has permitted shifting as

per the order dated 13-10-2020. The apprehension of the petitioner

was that being a differently abled person, he would find it difficult to

go to Parassala for each and every requirements of himself and such

similarly situated persons. Anyhow, in the order of the Lokayukta

namely Ext.P21 dated 16.11.2020, it is clearly stated that the

Managing Director of the Corporation has undertaken that it would

make adequate arrangements to deal with the situations put forth by

the petitioner and thereby, redress the grievances. It was after

recording such an undertaking that the Upa Lokayukta has dismissed

the complaint as per order dated 16.11.2020.

27. Apart from all the above, the counter affidavit filed by

respondents 1, 2 and 5 discussed above would make it clear that the

decision to modernise the workshop was taken as early as in 2017 and

2018 and thus making adequate space to conduct the manufacturing

operations and setting up showrooms, which in our view is a policy

decision of the State Government . Going by the provisions of the

Act, 1999 also, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the

action of shifting the workshop of the Corporation from Poojappura to

Parassala involves any corruption, malpractices or other adverse

circumstances susceptible to have been interfered with by the

Lokayukta. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we do not

find any illegality or arbitrariness or other legal infirmities in the orders

liable to be interfered in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

28. Therefore, we do not think the petitioner has made out any

case justifying interference with the orders of the Upa Lokayukta,

especially due to the fact that adequate safeguards are provided in

Ext.P21 order so as to protect the interest of the petitioner and other

similarly situated persons.

Needless to say, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is

dismissed.

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD CERTIFICATE NO.C3-11855/14/GHT DATED 19/12/2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30/01/2019 BETWEEN THE 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS.

EXHIBIT P2(a)              TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.

EXHIBIT P3                 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER

NO.2851/B1/2006/HANDICAPPED WELFARE CORPORATION DATED 29/07/2016.

EXHIBIT P3(a)              TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3.

EXHIBIT P4                 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN CITY SUPPLEMENT OF
                           KERALA KAUMUDI NEWSPAPER DATED 23/05/2019.

EXHIBIT P4(a)              TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4.

EXHIBIT P5                 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN
                           MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 04/01/2020.

EXHIBIT P5(a)              TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5.

EXHIBIT P6                 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/12/2019 OF THE ALL

INDIA DIFFERENTLY ABLED FEDERATION SUBMITTED TO MR.SASI THAROOR, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR TRIVANDRUM.

EXHIBIT P6(a)              TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6.

EXHIBIT P7                 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/02/2020

SUBMITTED BY THE RASHTRIYA VIKALANGA SANGH BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER.

EXHIBIT P7(a)              TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7.

EXHIBIT P8                 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/02/2020

SUBMITTED BY THE RASHTRIYA VIKALANGA SANGH BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE.

EXHIBIT P8(a)            TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8.

EXHIBIT P9               TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/02/2020

SUBMITTED BY THE RASHTRIYA VIKALANGA SANGH BEFORE THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

EXHIBIT P9(a)            TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P9.

EXHIBIT P10              TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/02/2020

SUBMITTED BY THE RASHTRIYA VIKALANGA SANGH BEFORE THE DIRECTOR FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE.

EXHIBIT P10(a) TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P10.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A1/2020/HANDICAPPED WELFARE CORPORATION DATED 02/2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11(a) TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P11.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT 64/2020-C AND INTERIM APPLICATION 145/2020.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 10/03/2020 ALLOWING IA 145/2020.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 17/03/2020 EXTENDING THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2020.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF JOINT WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 29/06/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST, 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 10/11/2020 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING DATED 16/10/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING DATED 27/10/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 18/11/2020.

EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.NHF/2/22/RTI/2018-VOL.38/6947

DATED 23/11/2020.

EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT IN IA 145/2020 DATED 16/11/2020.

EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT IN COMPLAINT 64/2020-C DATED 16/11/2020.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1 (a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/11/2016 WITH 2 ENCLOSURES.

EXHIBIT R1 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 184TH BOARD MEETING DATED 21/01/2017 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION).

EXHIBIT R1 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.665/2017/SJD DATED 10/10/2017 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION).

EXHIBIT R1 (d) TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) 757/2018/SJD DATED 28/12/2018.

EXHIBIT R1 (e) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 19/8/2019.

EXHIBIT R1 (f) TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION CRIME NO.803/2019 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION).

EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.120/D2/16/SJD DATED NIL -06-2017 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)

EXHIBIT R1 (h) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE (D) DEPARTMENT DATED 13/10/2020

/True Copy/

PS to Judge.

rv