Kerala Assistant Public ... vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2531 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

   FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.14714 OF 2020(R)


PETITIONER:

               KERALA ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION
               REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
               KILITHATTIL, CHERUVALLIMUKKU, ATTINGAL P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 101

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
               SRI.S.AJITH (PALAKKAD)

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
               HOME(C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

      2        HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULAM
               680 031

      3        UNION OF INDIA,
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND
               JUSTICE, NEW DELHI 110 001

      4        KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
               CHILD RIGHTS
               REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, TC 14/2036,
               VANROSS JUNCTION, KERALA UNIVERSITY P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034

      5        DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS,
               DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION, KERALA, ERNAKULAM
               682 018
 W.P.(C).No.14714/2020
                                  2

*       6        SUSMITHA JOHN,
                 AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, W/O.NOT KNOW
                 TO THE PETITIONER, THARAMACKALAM HOUSE,
                 CHELIMADA, KUMALY P.O.-685 509.

*       7        SANEESH S.S.,
                 AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW
                 TO THE PETITIONER, SREEKRISHNA BHAVAN,
                 HALIEYBURIA P.O., ELAPPARA-685 501.

*       8        S. REGHU,
                 AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW
                 TO THE PETITIONER, ALEKALATHIL, PUTHIYAVILA
                 P.O., KAYAMKULAM-690 531.

        9        PAUL K.ABRAHAM,
                 AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW
                 TO THE PETITIONER, KALAMBUKATTUSSERIL,
                 KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563.

        10       P.S. MANOJ,
                 AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW
                 TO THE PETITIONER, MADHAVASRAMAM, PERUNNA P.O.,
                 CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM-686 101.

        11       KIRAN RAJ R.,
                 AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW
                 TO THE PETITIONER, EETTIVIAYIL, KOODAL,
                 PATHANAMTHITTA-689 693.

        12       R.N. RANJITH,
                 AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOW
                 TO THE PETITIONER, THAPANI HOUSE, MELUR P.O.,
                 KOYILANDY-673 306.

        13       JETHIN P.,
                 AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.P.
                 VISHWAN, PALOTTERI HOUSE, MELUR P.O.,
                 KOYILANDY-673 305.
 W.P.(C).No.14714/2020
                                  3

        14       PRIYA U.K.,
                 AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, W/O.NOT KNOW
                 TO THE PETITIONER, PAROTTIYIL HOUSE, MEENANGADI
                 P.O., WAYANAD-673 591.

                 RESPONDENTS 6 TO 14 ARE IMPLEADED AS
                 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 6 TO 14 VIDE ORDER
                 DATED 17/08/2020 IN IA.3/2020 IN WPC.

                 R1, R5 BY SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, SPL. GOVERNMENT
                 PLEADER
                 R2 BY ADV. SHRI.B.G.HARINDRANATH
                 R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
                 R3 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
                 R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ
                 R7 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN
                 R8 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
                 R10 BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
                 R11 BY ADV. SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN
                 R12-14 BY ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL
                 R12-14 BY ADV. SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
                 R12-14 BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ
                 R12-14 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU THALIYATH
                 R12-14 BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE

OTHER PRESENT:

                 N. MANOJ KUMAR SPL GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24-11-2020, THE COURT ON 22-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.14714/2020
                                          4

                        ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
                       ===============
                      W.P.(C).No.14714 of 2020
                     ================
               Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2021

                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-

"i) declare that Assistant Public Prosecutors/ Deputy Director of prosecution are entitled to be considered as advocates for the purpose of appointment to the post of Special Public Prosecutors in Fast Track Special Courts (Fast Track Special Courts) for expeditious trial of Rape cases and cases registered under POCSO Act proposed to established in the State and further that respondents 1 and 2 are bound to complete the recruitment process under the supervision of the 4th respondent, and in terms of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 alone and not under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 8 of the Kerala Government Law officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate representation to senior grade Assistant Public Prosecutors and Deputy Director of Prosecution in the list of Special Public Prosecutors in Fast Track Special Courts (Fast Track Special Courts) for expeditious trial of Rape cases and cases registered under POCSO Act proposed to established in the State;

W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

(iii) issue a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P2 to the extent that it directs District Judges to forward a list of lawyers eligible to be appointed as Special Public Prosecutors in the newly set up Fast Track Special Courts in their district as per Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(iv) issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1 st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 representation forwarded to it, as expeditiously as possible and within an outer time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; and

(v) issue a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P11 notification issued by the 1st respondent"

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Special Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel

appearing for the contesting respondents 6 to 14.

3. The petitioner, which is a registered association of Assistant

Public Prosecutors, seeks the declaratory and directory reliefs for a

consideration of Assistant Public Prosecutors in the State of Kerala

for recruitment as Special Public Prosecutors in the Fast Track

Special Courts created for expeditious trial of cases under the W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the

POCSO Act'). It is submitted that pursuant to directions of the Apex

Court, Special Courts for expeditious trial of cases registered under

the POCSO Act were set up in the State of Kerala as well. 28 Fast

Track Special Courts were set up and the post of Special Public

Prosecutor was proposed to be filled up on a contractual basis. By

Ext.P1 order dated 06.02.2020, 28 such courts were set up with one

Special Public Prosecutor in each such court being appointed on a

contract basis. It was provided in Ext.P1 that the appointment of

Special Public Prosecutors will be on contract basis and that the

selection will be in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 (4)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also as per Section 32 of

the POCSO Act, 2012.

4. By Ext.P2, the High Court had directed the functioning of 14

Fast Track Special Courts to be made functional by March, 2020. The

District Judges were directed to forward the list of lawyers eligible

for appointment as full time Special Prosecutors in the Fast Track W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

Special Courts to the Law Department. Special Prosecutors were to

be selected from lawyers practicing in the same district possessing

appropriate attitude and temperament to deal with the victims of

POCSO Act cases and should preferably be active in issues regarding

child rights.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

Assistant Public Prosecutor, who are competent and experienced

should be appointed as Special Public Prosecutors in the POCSO in

public interest, since they are best suited for such appointment. The

said issue has been repeatedly agitated before the Government, but

to no avail. It is stated that Ext.P3 complaint had been preferred by

an NGO seeking appointment of Special Public Prosecutors in POCSO

Courts from among Senior grade Assistant Public Prosecutors and

Deputy Director of Prosecutions. It is stated that several requests

had been addressed to the Government seeking that atleast a

percentage of the Special Public Prosecutors in the newly set up Fast

Track Special Courts' should be appointed from amongst Deputy W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

Directors of Prosecution and Senior Grade Assistant Public

Prosecutors. It is submitted that in spite of the earnest requests

made by the petitioner association, no action had been taken to

consider the representations submitted. Relying on a decision of the

Apex Court in State of Punjab and another vs. Brijeshwar Singh

Chahal and another [(2016) 6 SCC 1], it is contended that

appointments to public posts must be conducted in a fair and

transparent manner and should be non discriminatory. It is

contended that Public Prosecutors, who are not employed in any

public service or civil post under the State, cannot be excluded from

the purview of practicing advocates. A decision of this Court in Aju

Mathew and others v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (5) KHC

770] and Omanakuttan Nair v. State of Kerala [2003 KHC 29] are

also relied on.

6. It is submitted that going by Section 32 of the POCSO Act, any

advocate, who is in practice for not less than 7 years, is eligible for

appointment as Special Public Prosecutor. Relying on the decision of W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

the Apex Court in Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and

others [(2013) 5 SCC 277], the learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that a Public Prosecutor or Government Counsel on the

rolls of the Bar Council is also an advocate and is eligible to be

considered against all posts to which an advocate can be considered.

However, it is stated that neither Ext.P1 Government Order nor

Ext.P2 memorandum of the High Court of Kerala acknowledges the

right of Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 25 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure to be considered for appointment as

Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act.

7. It is further submitted that the power to frame rules is

conferred by Section 45 of the POCSO Act and the 3 rd respondent has

framed the Protection of Children form Sexual Offences Rules, 2020.

Rule 12(b) of the Rules stipulates that the National Commission for

the Protection of Child Rights or the State Commission shall, in

addition to the functions assigned to it under the Commission for

Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 monitor the appointment of W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

Special Public Prosecutors by the State Governments. Section 44 of

the POCSO Act vests the power of monitoring the implementation of

provisions of the Act with the Child Rights Commission.

8. The selection was carried out during the pendency of the writ

petition. The writ petition was amended and specific allegations

with regard to the 9 Public Prosecutors appointed by Ext.P11

notification dated 05.08.2020 have been placed on record. It is stated

that the supplemental 10th respondent who was a member of the

ruling party of the State resigned as Councilor of Ward No.20 of

Changanassery Municipality on 03.08.2020 before being appointed

as Special Public Prosecutor on 05.08.2020. It is stated that the 13 th

respondent is the son of former CPM MLA, Sri.P.Vishwan.

Supplemental 6th respondent was a member of the Communist Party

of India, which is the part of the ruling front and is an Ex. Member

of the Idukki District Panchayat while supplemental 7 th respondent

is one of the leaders of the All India Lawyers Union, Idukki. The 8 th

respondent is a Former District level leader of the Students W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

Federation of India, while the 9 th respondent, whose father was a

former district Government Pleader and is a leader of the All India

Lawyers Union, Kottayam. The 11th respondent is a strong

sympathizer and active worker of CPI(M), who is practicing law

along with Mr.Pheelipose Thomas, a prominent political leader and

now chairman of KSFE Ltd. The supplemental 12 th respondent is a

leader of the Loktantrik Janata Dal, an ally of the ruling party in the

State. It is, therefore, contended that the entire exercise of

appointment of Special Public Prosecutors is vitiated and arbitrary

and is liable to be set aside.

9. A statement has been placed on record by the 2 nd respondent.

It is contended that the petitioner association represents Assistant

Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 25 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for conducting Prosecution in Magistrate Courts

and that such persons who form part of the cadre of a civil service

of the State cannot claim any right to be considered for ad hoc

appointment to the post of Special Public Prosecutor in the Fast W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

Track Special Courts constituted to try offences under the POCSO

Act. It is contended that the Government of Kerala had accorded

sanction for establishing 28 Fast Track Special Courts on a

temporary basis for two years by Ext.R2(a) Government Order dated

24.04.2020. 17 such courts commenced with effect from 01.07.2020

and the District Judges were directed to forward a list of lawyers

eligible to be appointed in each of the courts sanctioned in their

district for appointment as full time Special Public Prosecutor in the

Fast Track Special Court as provided under Section 24(4) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that the list was duly forwarded

to the Home Department and the Government as per Ext.R2(c)

Government Order dated 05.08.2020 appointed the Special Public

Prosecutors whose names had been send up by the District Judges in

9 Fast Track Special Courts. It is submitted that further

appointments have also been made following the procedure

provided under Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

10. A statement has also been placed on record by the 1 st

respondent. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents that appointments have been made

to the post of Special Public Prosecutors to the POCSO Courts only

for a short term duration of two years. It is submitted that the

Special Public Prosecutors are appointed for conducting cases in the

Fast Track Special Courts trying POCSO cases exclusively. It is

submitted that the procedure provided in Section 32 of the POCSO

Act as well as Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are

followed and there is absolutely no violation of any procedure. It is

contended that there is absolutely no mention that there was even

any application submitted by any one of the members of the

petitioner association and that as such, the contentions of the

petitioner are totally misconceived. It is further submitted that

Assistant Public Prosecutors and Deputy Directors of Prosecution

are employees of the Government, being a part of the cadre of post

created for conduct of prosecutions in Magistrate Courts. It is

submitted that applications were called for by the District W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

Magistrate as provided under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and a list was called for from the District Judges. It is

submitted that a due and proper consultation under Section 24(4)

had been carried out and that the vague allegations raised by the

writ petitioner cannot be relied on in the absence of any violation of

the prescribed procedure in the appointment of Special Public

Prosecutors. It is further contended that the petitioner association

has absolutely no locus standi to maintain a writ petition of this

nature. A decision of the Apex Court in Girjesh Shrivastava and

others v. State of M.P. and others [ JT 2010(11) SC598 ] is relied on.

11. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on a Division

Bench decision of this Court in John v. State of Kerala (1981 KHC

26) to contend that Section 24(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

would apply only in case of States where there is a regular cadre

consisting a hierarchy of prosecuting officers. Construing the

provisions of Section 24(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules 1978 (for short 'the 1978

Rules'), the Division Bench held that there is no cadre of prosecuting

officers existing in the State of Kerala. It was held that the mere fact

that Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I and Grade II together with

Legal Adviser to the Vigilance Division and Additional Legal Adviser

to the Vigilance Division formed a separate class for the purpose of

the Special Rules will not sustain the contention that a regular cadre

of prosecuting officers exists in the State. It was found that Public

Prosecutors, Assistant Public Prosecutors and District Government

Pleaders were not covered by the Special Rules, but were governed

by the 1978 Rules. It was thus found that the provisions of sub-

section 6 of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not

attracted in the appointment of Public Prosecutors or Additional

Public Prosecutors in the State of Kerala.

12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

there has been an amendment to the Rule, I notice that Section 25

specifically provides for the appointment of Assistant Public W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

Prosecutors for conducting prosecutions in the Courts of

Magistrates. Even today, the appointment of District Government

Pleaders and Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors in

District courts are governed by the 1978 Rules. More so, the decision

of the Division Bench of this Court was upheld by the Apex Court in

John v. State of Kerala (1990 KHC 447). This Court in Aju Mathew

and others v. State of Kerala and others [2018(5) KHC 770] also

considered the issue of appointment to the post of Special Public

Prosecutors under the POCSO Act. It was found that framing of rules

under Section 45 of the POCSO Act was not a condition prerequisite

for appointment of Special Public Prosecutors under Section 32. It

was further found that if the provisions of Section 24(3) and 24(4)

Cr.P.C. are scrupulously followed, the objectives declared in the

judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of appointment of

persons as prosecutors to various courts would be met. It was held

that the consultation between the District Judge and the District

Magistrate should be a meaningful consultation. An earlier decision

of this Court in Vinod v. State of Kerala [2016 (3) KLT 920] is also W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting

respondents.

13. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in

dispute before me that the appointment is sought to be made to the

post of Special Public Prosecutors under the Fast Track Special

Courts trying cases under the POCSO Act. It is to be noticed that

such Fast Track Special Courts are all district courts. The

appointments are being made for a period of two years at the first

instance. It is a specific case of the Government as well as the High

Court that a notification had been called for, applications had been

received and the applications had been placed before the District

Judge for consideration. It is stated that the District Judges

concerned had forwarded lists of suitable candidates from which the

appointments had been made by the Government. The learned

Government Pleader also places reliance on a decision of a Division

Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Saju George and others

(2017 KHC 2898) considering an identical question of appointment W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

of Special Public Prosecutors in POCSO courts. The Division Bench

held that though the 2012 Rules under the POCSO Act contained

provisions for monitoring the appointments of Public Prosecutors

by the State Government and held that the Commissions do not

have any say in the matter of appointment or removal of Special

Public Prosecutors, it was held that the duty of the Commissions was

to see that duly qualified prosecutors are appointed without any

break to handle the matters in the Special Courts and that it is for

the State Government to appoint duly qualified advocates to the

posts. It was held that the appointments should be made as Special

Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act exclusively and that the

meaningful consultation as provided for in the Code of Criminal

Procedure must be scrupulously followed.

14. In the instant case, the petitioner association seeks to

represent the Assistant Public Prosecutors in the State who

admittedly form a cadre in the service of the State. The contention

is that Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 25 are W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

also eligible to be considered for appointment as Special Public

Prosecutors. If it is the contention of the petitioner as is evident

from the representations submitted before the Government and the

various authorities that the service put in by Assistant Public

Prosecutors is also liable to be considered by making appointments

as Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act, I am of the

opinion that, that is a matter which requires consideration and a

policy decision by the Government. The desirability of experienced

prosecutors being considered for regular appointments as Special

Public Prosecutors for trial of cases under the POCSO Act is indeed a

matter which requires such consideration. However, in the factual

situation as obtained in the State of Kerala where there is no regular

cadre of prosecutors consisting of a hierarchy of such prosecutors

and the appointment of prosecutors as a cadre is limited to those

appointed under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

in view of the fact that a separate procedure is provided for

appointment of Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act, the

contention that the service put in by Assistant Public Prosecutors W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

and their experience as such is also liable to be reckoned for

appointment to the post of Special Public Prosecutors cannot be

accepted. This is more so in view of the fact that it is categorically

contended that the District Magistrates had called for applications

from eligible candidates and such applications had been forwarded

to the District Judges for consideration and it was from the list sent

up by the District Judges that the appointments have been made. In

view of the above facts, the contentions raised in the writ petition

regarding the political leaning or connections of the applicants are

irrelevant since it is not disputed that they are qualified and are

appointed pursuant to a due process of selection.

In the above factual situations and in view of the fact that

there is no whisper in the writ petition that any application had

been made by any Assistant Public Prosecutor in pursuance to the

notifications issued, I am of the opinion that the issue whether an

Assistant Public Prosecutor is a practicing advocate and is therefore

eligible to claim the appointment as Special Public Prosecutor for

conduct of cases under the POCSO Act does not require to be W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

considered herein. In the above view of the matter, the substantial

prayers raised in the writ petition are disallowed. However, in case

the petitioner make an appropriate representation before the State

and Central Governments for proper steps to be taken for the

formation of a cadre of prosecuting officers in the State, the said

issue will be properly considered by the respondents in accordance

with law.

sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj/np W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O DATED 06-02-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 24-02-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31-10-

2019 SUBMITTED BY YUVASWARAJ SOCIAL WELFARE FORUM BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-12-

2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06-01-

2020 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07-12-

2019 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 14-

012-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 20-

09-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM DATED 24-02-

2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.

W.P.(C).No.14714/2020

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 05.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE R2(A) A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.GO(MS) 93/2020/HOME DATED 24.4.2020

ANNEXURE R2(B) A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.GO(MS) 136/2020/HOME DATED 25.6.2020

ANNEXURE R2(C) A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.GO(RT) 1728/2020/HOME DATED 5.8.2020

TRUE COPY

PS TO JUDGE