Samuel David vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21584 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
     TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 10284 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
           SAMUEL DAVID, KANNAMKATTIL,
           ROSAPOOKKANDAM, KUMALY.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
            SRI.A.R.DILEEP
            SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN
            SMT.PARVATHY NAIR


RESPONDENT/S:
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE
           DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILDLIFE,
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
     2      DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI-685 602.
     3      REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
            OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI-685 602.
     4      TAHSILDAR
            TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU-685 531.
     5      VILLAGE OFFICER
            VILLAGE OFFICE, KUMILY-685 509.
     6      DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
            DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
     7      FOREST RANGE OFFICER
            FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KUMALY-685 509.
            R BY SR.GP (FOREST)SRI.T.P.SAJAN

     THIS   WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
28.09.2021, THE COURT ON 02.11.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) 10284/2015                   2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is a resident of Kumaly village of

Peerumedu Taluk and owns an extent of 0.0608 Hectors (15 cents) of

land in Sy.No. 44 of the said village under Thandeper Account No.

8273. The said property originally belonged to his father, Sri. David,

as per Land Assignment Proceedings No. 56/67 of Periyar village and

it devolved on the petitioner by virtue of partition effected in the

family.

2. According to the petitioner, the said property is neither a forest

land nor a reserved forest or a property included in the list of land

notified under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment)

Act, but, a non-forest land situated in a non-notified area under the

Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005. He

also states that the said land is not part of excess land, puramboke land

or land notified as ecologically fragile land. It is stated that in the

aforesaid land, a rose wood tree having a height of 14 Ft. and 212 cm

girth was standing dangerous to the life and building of the petitioner.

Since the said tree was included in the list of trees reserved under the

grant, he made a representation before the Tahsildar, Peerumedu

seeking permission to cut and remove it. The Tahsildar, after

conducting enquiry through the Village Officer, forwarded the

representation submitted by the petitioner along with documents to the

Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Idukki for necessary orders. The

Tahsildar reported that, the rosewood tree is standing in a dangerous

condition, causing threat to the life, residential building and

agricultural field of the petitioner and adjacent residents and therefore,

recommended for orders allowing the petitioner to cut and utilize the

rosewood tree for his own purpose and requested to fix the seigniorage

of the tree.

3. The RDO, being satisfied with the dangerous condition of the

tree, issued Ext.P3 order under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. directing the

Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam to cut the rosewood tree within

one week from the date of order and to remove it to the forest depot

for public auction. It was also directed to remit the auction amount to

the Revenue Department after deducting the expenses for cutting and

removing the tree.

4. Since there was considerable delay in cutting and removing

the tree as directed in Ext.P3, the petitioner requested the respondents

to allow him to cut the tree to avoid any possible danger to the life and

property of the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner

therefore, arranged to cut the tree and stacked the pieces of timber

(four logs) in his premises.

5. Since the rosewood tree cut and kept in the premises of the

petitioner was not permitted to be utilized by him, he made a

representation to the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue and the same was

forwarded to the District Collector for necessary action. The District

Collector by Ext. P6 communication directed the Forest Range Officer

(FRO), Kumaly to determine the seigniorage of the said rosewood

timber, in order to consider the petitioner's request for release of the

timber.

6. In terms of Ext.P6, the FRO, by Ext.P7 communication

computed the value of the timber at Rs.1,66,170/-. Meanwhile, the

Village Officer, by Ext.P8, reported to the District Collector that the

petitioner had incurred an expenditure of Rs.20,000/- for the cutting of

the rosewood tree.

7.The petitioner approached the District Collector by Ext. P9

representation stating that by virtue of the provisions under Section 6

of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act

2005, he is entitled to remove the timber for his own use and he is not

liable to pay seigniorage with respect to the said rosewood tree. Since

Ext. P9 was not considered by the District Collector with dispatch, he

moved this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P(C) 20131/2014, and the same

was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing the District Collector

to pass orders on Ext.P9 representation.

8. Pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment, the District Collector, by Ext.

P11 order, rejected Ext.P9 stating that the reserved trees in the

assigned land belong exclusively to the Government. The District

Collector directed the Tahsildar to auction the rosewood timber with

base price as Rs.1,66,170/-, being the seigniorage of the timber fixed

by the FRO and to remit the auction amount to the Revenue

Department after deducting the expenses for cutting and removing the

tree.

9. Ext.P11 is impugned in the writ petition contending that the

petitioner is not liable to pay seigniorage for the rosewood tree cut and

removed from his property for own use as per the provisions of Kerala

Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 or in the

alternative to declare that the petitioner, as the assignee and the

occupant, is entitled to purchase the timber by remitting the

seigniorage in terms of Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees

Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995.

10. A counter affidavit dated 23.05.2015 is filed by the FRO, the

7th respondent, wherein it is stated that the Rosewood tree cut from the

land of the petitioner is a reserved tree and hence it is fully vested with

the Government and the petitioner has no right over the timber from

the tree. It is stated that the Rosewood tree (Dalbergia latifolia) felled

and lying in petitioner's compound is having a GBH above 212 cm

and must be planted or grown by natural propagation during the year

1850, when the said land was with the Maharaja of Travancore and

must have an age of more than 150 years and subsequently when patta

was assigned to this land, the authorities who assigned patta reserved

this Rosewood tree in the patta document. It is further stated that,

according to the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees

Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995,

all the trees standing on lands temporarily or permanently assigned,

the right of Government over which has been expressly reserved in the

deed or grant or order of assignment of such land, shall be the absolute

property of Government and since Rosewood tree is a reserved tree,

the petitioner has no right over the timber of the tree cut from the land.

It is stated that the patta in respect of the land was granted in the year

1967 after the enforcement of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964

and as per Condition No.1 in Appendix II of the Rules, which is the

Form of patta, the full right over all the trees of the four species

namely, Teak, Rosewood, Ebony, Sandalwood, standing on the land at

the time of assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to

it, vests in the Government and the assignee/petitioner has no right

over the trees therein.

11. When the FRO, Kumily published Ext. P12 notice to auction

the timber including the timber cut from the land of the petitioner, this

Court, by order dated 27.05.2015, stayed the proceedings pursuant to

the said notice.

12. Heard Sri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T.P. Sajan, Special Government

Pleader for Forests.

13. The undisputed facts is that the land in which the Rosewood

tree was standing is an assigned land. Though the petitioner states that

the property in which the Rosewood tree was standing originally

belonged to his father, Sri.David, as per Land Assignment Proceedings

No.56/67 of Periyar village and later, devolved on the petitioner by

virtue of partition effected in the family, the copy of the patta is not

produced. Going by the averments in the writ petition, it can be seen

that the patta in respect of the land was granted in the year 1967, after

the enforcement of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Having

regard to the Girth at Breast Height (GBH) of the tree, the Rosewood

tree in question must be 150 years old and definitely be standing in the

property at the time of assignment. It is also not in dispute that the tree

rotted at its base was posing danger to the petitioner, his family,

building and cultivation and the RDO, in exercise of powers under

Section 133 of the Cr.P.C, has ordered the tree to be cut and removed

for public auction and to remit the amount to the Revenue

Department. Since the authorities did not cut the trees, to avert the

possible and imminent threat to life, property and cultivation, the

petitioner cut the tree at his expense. The petitioner has expended an

amount of Rs. 20,000/- for cutting the tree and the timber (4 logs) is

under his care and custody ever since. The petitioner requested the

District Collector for permission to utilize the timber for own use, but,

was rejected by the District Collector. The seigniorage of the timber

fixed by the FRO is Rs.1,66,170/-.

14. Sri. George Varghese took me through the provisions of the

Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, the Kerala Land Assignment

Rules, 1964,the Kerala Promotion of Tree growth in Non-Forest Areas

Act, 2005,the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Land

Rules, 2006, the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 and the

Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing On Land

Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995.

15. Sri. George Varghese, referring to the Schedule in the form

of Patta in Appendix II as per Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Land

Assignment Rules, 1964, contended that only (i) Teak, (ii) Black

Wood, (iii) Ebony, (iv) Sandal wood are included in the list of

reserved trees and Rose Wood is conspicuously absent in the Schedule

and therefore the Rosewood tree cut from the land of the petitioner

will not vest in the Government. However, when it was pointed out

that Black Wood tree referred to in the Schedule is the same as

Rosewood tree, Sri. George Varghese, in his usual fairness, did not

further raise that contention.

16. Referring to Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules

1964, Sri. Sajan contends that, patta is issued in the Form in Appendix

II to the said Rules and mandatory conditions are mentioned therein

and condition No.1 provides for vesting of four species of trees

including Rosewood standing on the land at the time of assignment or

that may come into existence subsequent to it, with the Government.

He contends that these trees vest with the Government and the

Pattadar has no right over these trees.

17. I fully agree with the submission of Sri. Sajan. Condition No.

1 in the Form in Appendix II to the Kerala Land Assignment Rules,

1964 reads as follows:-

"The full right over all the trees within the grant

and specified in the schedule Vests in the

Government and the assignee is bound to take

care of all such trees standing on the land at the

time of assignment or that may come into

existence subsequent to it"

In the schedule, the following four species of trees are included,

namely;

1. Teak

2. Black wood

3. Ebony

4. Sandalwood

Though the land where the Rosewood tree was standing was assigned

to the petitioner's father, the ownership of the Rosewood tree never got

vested in the petitioner's father or the petitioner. By virtue of the

condition in the patta the tree automatically stands reserved to the

Government. The tree belongs to the Government and none else.

18. Sri. Sajan cited the Division Bench decision of this Court in

Gopi v. Tahsildar reported in [2003 (1) KLT SN 33: 2003 KHC

211: 2003 (1) KLJ 24: AIR 2003 (NOC) Ker. 572] to buttress the

aforesaid contention. Para 7 of the said decision reads thus:-

"7. Admittedly the land is assigned by execution of a

deed of assignment. In common parlance it is described

as 'patta'. Form of this patta has been given in Appendix

II of the Rules. The assignment is subject to certain

conditions. The first condition is in the following terms:

"1.The full right over all the trees within the grant and specified in the schedule vests in the Government and the assignee is bound to take care of all such trees standing on the land at the time of assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to it".

The above stipulation in the deed of assignment clearly shows that the trees specified in the schedule vest in the State Government. The assignee has no right therein. In fact he is under a duty to take care of the trees which are on the land at the time of assignment or even those which may come into existence subsequently. Still further it is the admitted position that at the time of execution of the deed of assignment four trees were

specifically mentioned in the schedule to the appendix. One of the trees was the one in question in the present case. This being the factual position it is clear that by the first condition in the deed of assignment the appellant was precluded from cutting the tree, In fact he was under a duty to preserve it. It is not disputed that under the deed of assignment the conditions were binding on the assignee. In fact there is a categoric declaration that he would be bound by the conditions. Thus, on a combined reading of R.10(3) and the condition in the "patta", it is clear that it is only when the government decides to sell that the assignee has to pay the price. Otherwise, he is bound by the terms of assignment."

Taking cue from the penultimate sentence of the above extracted

portion of the decision, which reads, "Thus on a combined reading of

Rule 10(3) and the condition in the "patta" it is clear that it is only

when the government decides to sell that the assignee has to pay the

price". Sri. George Varghese would contend that, here, since the

Government/Authorities having decided to sell the timber, the

petitioner/assignee has a vested right to seek release of timber on

payment of price fixed by the Government, which is the seniorage

fixed as per Ext.P7. Here, it will be apposite to extract Rule 10(3) of

the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 which reads as follows:

"Rule 10. Land value and other dues to be paid.-

xxx

3. The assignee shall also be liable to pay the value of the trees, plants and (Vines) if any, specified in Parts A and B of Appendix III to these rules standing on the land at the time of assignment at such rates as may by order, be specified by Government and subject to the following conditions.

(a) No value shall be charged in respect of trees the girth of which is 90 c.m. or less at breast height.

(b) If the assignee was already in occupation of the land and he or his predecessor in occupation has planted trees etc., thereon, no tree value shall be charged in respect of such of those trees etc. planted by him or his predecessor in occupation as are specified in Part B of Appendix III to these rules.

(c) If the assignee is not agreeable to pay the tree value as specified in clause (a), in respect of trees specified in Part A of Appendix III, the Tahsildar

shall dispose of, in public auction, the trees growth which is not allowed free to the assignee under that clause".

19. A perusal of the above provision shows that, Rule 10 (3)

speaks about the trees specified in Parts A and B of Appendix III to

the Rules and not with regard to the four species of trees included in

the Schedule to the Form in Appendix II to the Kerala Land

Assignment Rules 1964. Rosewood is not a tree enlisted in Part A or B

of Appendix III to the said Rules. Even if it is otherwise, Rule 10 (3)

does not place any obligation on the Government to sell it to the

assignee. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner

that the authorities having decided to sell the timber, the

petitioner/assignee has a vested right to seek release of timber on

payment of price fixed by the Government, which is the seniorage

fixed as per Ext.P7, is not sustainable.

20.The other contention of Sri. George Varghese is that, Section

6(1) of the Kerala Promotion of Tree growth in Non-Forest Areas Act,

2005 gives right of owners to cut and remove trees in non notified

areas in non forest land. According to the counsel, though the proviso

restricts its application to trees if any, reserved by the Government at

the time of assignment of such land, the proviso is applicable only to

sub-section (1) and the 2nd proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 6 allows

small holders to cut and remove specified trees as defined under

Section 2(e) other than Sandal wood with the prior permission in

writing of Authorised officer. He also refers to Rule 4(iv) of The

Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Land Rules, 2006

which allows Rose Wood trees to be cut after attaining a minimum

girth of 150 cm at 1.4 meters above ground level. Section 6 of the

Kerala Promotion of Tree growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 reads

thus:

"6. Right of owners to cut and remove trees in non-

forest land - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained

in any other law for the time being in force and

subject to the other provisions of this Act, every

owner of non- forest land in a non-notified area shall

have the right to cut and transport any tree, other than

sandalwood tree, standing on his land:

Provided that the provision of this sub-section shall

not apply to trees, if any, reserved by the Government

at the time of assignment of such land or trees

standing on any land notified under section 5 of the

Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 (35 of 1986) or

the areas notified by the Custodian under the Kerala

Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically

Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (21 of 2005).

(2) For the purpose of this Act the Government may,

by notification in the Gazette, appoint such officers

not below the rank of a Forest Range Officer as they

think fit to be Authorised Officers (referred to as

'Authorised Officer' in this Act) and may assign to

them such local limits as the Government think fit.

(3) The Government may, with a view to preserving

tree growth in the interest of protecting the ecology or

in public interest by notification in the Gazette direct

that no tree standing in any area of non-forest land

specified in the notification shall be cut, uprooted,

burnt or otherwise destroyed except on the ground that

the tree constitutes a danger to life or property or is

wind fallen:

Provided that the small holders in the area notified

under this sub-section are free to cut and remove any

tree except the specified trees:

Provided further that the small holders in the area

notified under this sub-section may cut and remove any

specified tree other than sandalwood only with the prior

permission in writing of the Authorised Officer and

such prior permission shall not be required for the

cutting and removal of trees except specified trees:

Provided also that the owners other than small holders

in an area notified under this sub-section may cut and

remove any tree other than sandalwood tree only with

the prior permission in writing of the Authorised

Officer and such permission shall not be required for

the cutting and removal of trees mentioned in the

Schedule:

Provided also that such permission mentioned in the

second and third provisos shall not be refused by the

Authorised Officer if the tree constitutes a danger to life

or property or is wind-fallen:

Note - For the purpose of this sub-section all the

mangrove areas or cardamom or coffee plantations shall

be deemed to be notified areas.

(4) No owner including a small holder shall cut or

remove any sandalwood tree in any non-forest area.

Such cutting or removal may be done only by the

Forest Department in the manner as may be prescribed.

(5) Where a specified tree is to be cut or any timber of a

specified tree is to be transported from any non-forest

land to any other place, the owner of such tree shall,

before cutting the tree or transporting the timber, as the

case may be, file before the Authorised Officer having

jurisdiction over the area, a declaration containing

details such as the survey number of the land from

which the tree is to be cut, number of trees, species of

trees, quantity of timber and the place to which such

timber is being transported, either directly or send it by

registered post with acknowledgment due.

(6) Every declaration filed under sub-section (5) shall

be acknowledged by the authorised officer forthwith

and a copy of the declaration so acknowledged shall

accompany the timber during its transport:

Provided that if acknowledgment from the Authorised

Officer is not received within twenty days on receipt of

the declaration, the same shall be deemed to have been

received, if the trees are to be cut and removed from a

non-notified area:

Provided further that if timber of a specified tree cut as

per sub-section (3) is to be transported from a non-

forest land within the notified area, necessary

inspection shall be conducted by the Authorised Officer

and if it is found permissible, he may issue a transport

permit in such form as may be prescribed, which shall

accompany the timber during its transportation.

(7) The cutting and removal of trees standing on non-

forest areas, owned, controlled or vested in a Local Self

Government Institution and its disposal shall be

governed by such rules, as may be prescribed.

(8) An appeal against the order of refusal of permission

by the Authorised Officer may be preferred before the

concerned Divisional Forest Officer/Wild Life Warden

within such time and in such manner as may be

prescribed.

Explanation - For the purpose of this Act, the term

'timber' wherever used shall include firewood also."

(emphasis supplied)

21. The definition of 'specified trees' in Section 2(e) includes

Rose Wood. True, the restriction to the application of the non-obstante

clause in sub-section (1) of Section 6 to assigned lands by the proviso

thereto is not applicable to sub-section (3) of Section 6 and the 2 nd

proviso to sub-section 3 allows small holders to cut and remove

specified trees as defined under Section 2(e) other than Sandal wood

with the prior permission in writing of Authorised officer.

22. The counsel also refers to Section 4(1) of the Kerala

Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 which provides that no person shall,

without the previous permission in writing of the authourised officer,

cut, uproot or burn, or cause to be cut, uprooted or burnt, any tree.

Section 4(2) provides that previous permission as required under

section 4(1) shall not be refused if it constitutes a danger to the life or

property and clause 4(2)(c) provides that, such cutting is to enable the

owner of the land in which the tree stands, to use the area cleared or

the timber cut for the construction of the building for his own use. The

definition of trees in Section 2(e) of the Kerala Preservation of Trees

Act, 1986 includes Rose Wood.

23. It is to be noted that, the petitioner has not sought the prior/

previous permission in writing of the authorised officer either under

the Kerala Promotion of Tree growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005

or under the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 for cutting and

removal of timber for the construction of building for his own use.

Under the aforesaid Acts and Rules, the authorised officer means an

officer not below the rank of FRO as notified. What is impugned is

Ext. P11, the order passed by the District Collector who, after

referring to the conditions of assignment of land held that the reserved

trees in the assigned land belong exclusively to the Government.

24. Referring to Rule 5 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of

Felling of Trees Standing On Land Temporarily or Permanently

Assigned) Rules, 1995, Sri George Varghese contends that the said

provision allows sale of timber to the assignee by paying seigniorage

under the Provisions of Kerala Forest (Preservation, Reproduction and

Disposal of Trees and Timber belonging to Government, but Grown

On Lands In The Occupation Of Private Persons) Rules, 1975. The

said Rule, however provides that, the Government may, in the absence

of any provision to the contrary, in the deed of grant or order of

assignment, sanction the sale of timber belonging to the Government

to the assignee under the Provisions of Kerala Forest (Preservation,

Reproduction and Disposal of Trees and Timber belonging to

Government, but Grown On Lands In The Occupation Of Private

Persons) Rules, 1975. Since the reserved trees vest in the Government

as per the order of assignment, I am of the view that these provisions

will not be of any help to the petitioner to contend that the

Government can sell the timber to the petitioner. I do not find merit in

this contention as well.

25. It is to be noted that, the petitioner, as a law abiding person,

has approached the Revenue authorities with request for own use of

Rosewood timber that was legally felled from his land. He approached

the Minister for Revenue who made over the request of the petitioner

to the District Collector and the District Collector has passed the

impugned order rejecting the request. The petitioner has even offered

to purchase the timber by remitting the seigniorage fixed by the FRO.

He has preserved the timber (4 logs) under his care and custody for

nearly a decade. The number of trees involved is only one. Therefore,

this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner shall be given an

opportunity to approach the Government for permission for use of the

timber cut from the land for his own use. The petitioner shall file

necessary representation before the 1st respondent in this regard within

a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the

judgment and the 1st respondent shall consider such request and pass

appropriate order, within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of representation after hearing the petitioner. Till such time, the

interim order passed by this Court on 27.05.2015 in the writ petition

as regards the Rosewood timber cut from the petitioner's property

shall continue.

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is

disposed of. No order as to costs.

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

spc/

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10284/2015

PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1 : A COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.B2-14734/10 DTD.11.1.2011 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

P2 : A COPY OF COMMUNICATION NOB2-14734/10 DTD.11.1.2011 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

P3 : A COPY OF ORDER DTD.1.6.2011 IN CMP 6/11.

P4 : A COPY OF REPORT NO.9/13 DTD.15.6.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

P5 : A COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.B2/14734/10 DTD.17.6.2013. P6 : A COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.K1-8829/13 DTD.26.6.2013 SEND BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

P7 : A COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.K-75/2013 DTD.12.8.2013. P8 : A COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO TEH 2ND RESPONDENT.

P9 : A COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.14.7.2014.

P10 : A COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20131/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

P11 : A COPY OF ORDER NO.K108829/13 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P12 : A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT