K.R.Suresh Kumar vs The Joint Registrar Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11555 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
  TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 3897 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1     CHAITHANYA KRISHNAN.A.,
          THEJAS, ELAPPULLY 1, ELAPPULLY,
          PALAKKAD, PIN-678 622.
    2     VARIJAKSHAN,
          PALACHIRAKALAM, MANNUKLAD, VENGODI P.O., ELAPPULLY 1,
          PALAKKAD, PIN-678 622.
    3     RANI.K.,
          75, PACHAMALAYIL HOUSE, NOMBIKODE, ELAPPULLY 2,
          PALAKKAD, PIN-678 622.
    4     VISHALAKSHI,
          VISMAYA NIVAS, PATTACHAMKAVU, ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD,
          PIN-678 622.
          BY ADVS.
          N.RAGHURAJ
          SAYUJYA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)
          PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
          SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 002.
    2     THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
          (GENERAL),
          JAWAHAR BAHVAN, EAST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 001.
    3     THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
          THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 1193,
          ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 622, REPRESENTED BY
          THE COMMITTEE CONVENOR.
    4     THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 1193,
          ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 622, REPRESENTED BY
          ITS SECRETARY.
          BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
 W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022
                                    2

OTHER PRESENT:

              SPL.GP CO-OPERATION.P.P.THAJUDHEEN



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3937/2022, THE COURT ON 20.12.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022
                                          3



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                       PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
   TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                                WP(C) NO. 3937 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

      1       K.R.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS
              S/O.RAMANKUTTY, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE ELAPPULLY
              SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1193, ELAPPULLY
              P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 622.
      2       M.JAMEESHA, AGED 56 YEARS
              S/O.C.A.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE
              ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1193,
              ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 622.
      3       DEVADAS.K., AGED 43 YEARS
              S/O.KANNAN, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE ELAPPULLY
              SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1193, ELAPPULLY
              P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 622.
      4       N.KRISHNADAS,
              S/O.NARAYANAN, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE ELAPPULLY
              SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1193, ELAPPULLY
              P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 622.
      5       K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 57 YEARS
              S/O.KRISHNAN, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE ELAPPULLY
              SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1193, ELAPPULLY
              P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 622.
      6       SREEDHARAN.U., AGED 79 YEARS
              S/O.UNNY, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE ELAPPULLY SERVICE
              CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1193, ELAPPULLY P.O.,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 622.
      7       C.MURALIKUMAR,
              S/O.CHAMI, MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE ELAPPULLY SERVICE
              CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1193, ELAPPULLY P.O.,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 622.
              BY ADVS.
              ARUN CHANDRAN
              NISHA GEORGE
              CHITHRA P.GEORGE
 W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022
                                    4

              REGINALD VALSALAN
              HANA KARNOLIA MADONA CYRIL
              GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)


RESPONDENTS:

      1       THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
              OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE
              SOCIETIES(GENERAL), KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, CIVIL
              STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 013.
      2       THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
              (GENERAL),
              JAWAHAR BHAVAN, EAST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN
              CODE-678 001.
      3       THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F
              1193,
              ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678 622,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
      4       THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
              THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F
              1193, ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE-678
              622, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR.
              BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3897/2022, THE COURT ON 20.12.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022
                                     5




                               JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.3897/2022, 3937/2022]

Dated this the 20th day of December, 2022

The petitioners are the elected Managing Committee

members of the Elappully Service Co-operative Bank. They are

aggrieved by the supersession of the Committee under Section

32 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short).

2. Heard Senior Adv. George Poonthottam and Adv. N.

Raghuraj for the petitioners and Adv. P.P. Thajudheen, Special

Government Pleader (Co-operation) for the respondents.

3. Although various contentions were raised assailing the

order of supersession, including the contention that the

impugned order is motivated by personal animosity and

political rivalry, those contentions based on disputed facts

cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 are

concerned. Similarly the gravity of the charges alleged and

the acceptability of the explanation offered are not open for W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

consideration, they being disputed facts. The contentions I find

worthy of consideration are; (i) the order for inquiry under

Section 65 was issued under dictation (ii) the consultation

mandated under Section 32(2) of the Act was not done

properly (iii) The order is issued in violation of the principles of

natural justice and fair play since the order is not issued by the

officer who heard the petitioners.

4. In order to consider the challenge, it is essential to

have an understanding of the scheme of the Co-operative

Societies Act. As discernible from the preamble to the Act,

Co-operative Societies are meant to be self-governing

democratic institutions. No doubt, Co-operative Societies

should function within the framework of the Act and the Rules

and are bound to abide by the orders and circular instructions

issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Whenever

the Societies deviate from its objectives as declared by the

bye-laws and are found to be violating the mandatory

stipulations under the Act and the Rules and fails to abide by

the Government Orders and circular instructions, resulting in W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

loss to the Society and its members, the Registrar has the

power to conduct enquiry or inspection and to initiate further

action, which may ultimately result in the Managing

Committee being superseded or the persons responsible for

causing loss to the Society, being proceeded against. Except

under the above circumstances, there cannot be any

unnecessary intervention into the affairs of co-operative

Societies. Even in such circumstances, action can be initiated

only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the

Act and Rules.

5. The first ground of challenge is that the order for

enquiry under Section 65 was issued under dictation. In my

opinion, having participated in the enquiry and the subsequent

proceedings under section 32, the petitioners are estopped

from raising that contention at this stage. The principles of

acquiescence and waiver deprives the petitioners' right to raise

such a challenge.

6. The next contention is that the order under Section

32 was passed without considering the opinion of the W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

consultees. For considering this challenge, it is essential to

carefully scrutinize the impugned order. A reading of the order

reveals that for the purpose of consultation, the notice under

Section 32(1) along with documents were forwarded to the

State Co-operative Bank and the Circle Co-operative Union,

Palakkad. The State Co-operative Bank approved the decision

to supersede the Managing Committee while the Circle

Co-operative Union opined that the explanation offered by the

Bank should be accepted in its face value and opportunity

given to cure the defects, rather than superseding a

democratically elected Committee. Other than extracting the

opinion of the consultees, there is absolutely no discussion in

the order as to how the opinion is dealt with. It is not stated

as to whether the opinion of the Circle Co-operative Union was

rejected and if so, the reason for doing so. In this context, it

may be profitable to refer to the decision in Jose Kuttiyani v.

Registrar of Co-operative Societies [AIR 1982 Ker. 12]

which is considered to be the locus classicus on the procedure

and powers under Section 32 of the Act. Paragraph 23 of the W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

decision being contextually relevant is extracted hereunder;

"23. The word 'consult implies a conference of two or

more persons or an impact of two or more minds in

respect of a topic in order to enable them to evolve a

correct or at least a satisfactory, solution- see R.

Pushpam v. State of Madras (AIR 1953 Mad. 392).

This meaning was approved by the Supreme Court in

Union of India v. Sankalchand (AIR 1977 SC 2328.

Para 39) and then their Lordships added-

"In order that the two minds may be able to

confer and produce a mutual impact, it is

essential that each must have for its

consideration full and identical facts which can

at once constitute both the source and

foundation of the final decision."

In a case that arose under a similar provision in the

Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act a single Judge

of the Madras High Court has in K. Thangavelu v Jt

Registrar, Cooperative Societies (AIR 1976 Mad. 280)

considered the nature and occasion of consultation W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

with the financing Bank. The aspect is stated thus at

P. 281, para 4.

"At the stage of the issue of the above show

cause notice no one knows as to what is going

to happen ultimately. It is only the first

respondent makes up his mind after due enquiry

in relation to the irregularities referred to in the

show cause notice, that the financing bank has

to be consulted with regard to the action

proposed to be taken. If the consultation is

before the issue of show cause notice and if the

first respondent ultimately finds that the

irregularities referred to in the show cause

notice have not been established, the

consultation earlier obtained will become a mere

formality and it would be a sheer waste of time."

We think the principle is correctly stated in this case

and we agree with it."

7. The Apex Court also had occasion to consider the

meaning and ambit of the term 'consultation', though in a W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

different context. In Ram Tawakya Singh v. State of Bihar

and Ors. [(2013) 16 SCC 206) the Supreme Court made the

following observation at paragraphs 29 and 30;

"29. The word "consultation" used in Sections 10(2)

and 12(1) of the BSU Act and Sections 11(2) and

14(1) of the PU Act is of crucial importance. The word

"consult" implies a conference of two or more persons

or impact of two a or more minds in respect of a

topic/subject. Consultation is a process which requires

meeting of minds between the parties involved in the

process of consultation on the material facts and

points to evolve a correct or at least satisfactory

solutions. Consultation may be between an uninformed

person and an expert or between two experts. In

either case, the final decision is with the consultor, but

he will not be generally ignoring the advice of the

consultee except for good reasons.

30. In order for two minds to be able to confer and

produce a mutual impact, it is essential that each must

have for its consideration fully and identical facts, W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

which can at once constitute both the source and

foundation of the final decision. Such a consultation

may take place at a conference table or through

correspondence. The form is not material but the

substance is important. If there is more than one

person to be consulted, all the persons to be consulted

should know the subject with reference to which they

are consulted. Each one should know the views of the

other on the subject. There should be meeting of

minds between the parties involved in the process of

consultation on the material facts and points involved.

The consultor cannot keep one consultee in dark about

the views of the other consultee. Consultation is not

complete or effective before the parties thereto make

their respective points of view known to the other and

discuss and examine the relative merit of their views."

8. Going by the above decisions, the 'consultation'

mandated under Section 32(2) is not an empty formality.

Though not bound by the opinion of the consultees, the

Registrar should clearly state the reasons for not accepting the

opinion. In the case at hand although consultation is effected, W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

the opinion of the consultees is not taken into consideration

before arriving at the final decision. If such procedure is

adopted that would render the consultation process otiose.

Therefore, I hold that the consultation process mandated in

Section 32(2) was not adhered to.

9. Coming to the challenge on the ground that the

impugned order was passed by a officer other than the one

who had heard the petitioners, it is to be noted that the

respondents do not dispute the fact that the notice under

Section 32(1) was issued and the hearing conducted by M.

Sabaridas, while the order under challenge is passed by a

person named M.P. Hiran, who succeeded M. Sabaridas as joint

Registrar, Palakkad. The requirement under Section 32 is of

the Registrar being satisfied that the Committee is guilty of the

actions enumerated as (a) to (d) under Section 32(1). Such

satisfaction has to be arrived at based on the available

material. Thereafter, the Registrar has to give an opportunity

to the Committee to state its objections. If the Registrar is not

satisfied with the explanation offered by the Committee, then W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

the Committee can be removed. The above procedure

indicates that satisfaction of the officer is fundamental for

initiating action under Section 32 and for superseding the

Committee. Such satisfaction is essential for finding that the

Committee is liable to be superseded and should continue to

exist even after hearing the explanation offered by the

members of the committee. Here, the Joint Registrar who

issued Section 32(1) notice had arrived at the satisfaction that

the Committee is liable to be removed. He had also heard the

explanation offered by the Committee, but did not decide to

supersede the Committee in spite of the explanation

submitted by the members. On the other hand, the officer who

passed the impugned order had neither arrived at the

satisfaction regarding the requirement of removing the

committee nor had occasion to hear the explanation offered by

the members of the Committee. As such, the order is passed

merely based on the records available. Considering the gravity

of the action taken and its implications, the order of

supersession should not have been passed without the officer W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

being satisfied that the Committee was bound to be

superseded despite the explanation. In view of the element of

subjectiveness involved, it is imperative for the officer who

passed the order to have heard the Committee members in

person before taking a decision. The law on this point is laid

down by the decision in Jesudasan v. Joint Registrar of Co-

operative Societies (2009 (2) KLT 86), wherein it was held

as follows;

"20. In cases of supersession under S.32(1) of the Act,

the occurrence of the statutory facts among the

different clauses in the said section is a matter about

which the Registrar has to be satisfied, if the order that

he passes has to stand on a jurisdictional issue. That

finding has necessarily to be rendered after taking

stock of facts and materials in relation to the

functioning of a co-operative society, when the

committee to which an opportunity to state objections

is given, shows cause as to why the committee shall

not be superseded and states its objections with

reference to materials, it is the bounden duty of the W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

Registrar to decide on the matter after looking into the

materials in the light of the objections. As in the case

in hand, even oral evidence may be tendered. As noted

by the Division Bench in Marico Industries Ltd. (supra),

a decision on those materials cannot be exclusively of

the head or of the heart. Not only that, the decision

under S.32 is not to be rendered either by the

Government or by any other body of persons. It is not

a collective decision that is contemplated or provided

for. It is the satisfaction of the Registrar, who is an

officer appointed by the State Government under S.3

of the Act or on whom the powers of the Registrar are

conferred under that provision. Therefore, there is no

ground to hold that the decision to be rendered under

S.32 could be an institutional one. Hence, the officer

who hears the objections of a committee to the notice

proposing supersession under S.32(1) shall himself

decide on the matter. The impugned order, admittedly

rendered by one, after the committee of which the

petitioner was the President was heard by another, is

without jurisdiction."

W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

10. Although the learned Special Government Pleader

relied on the decision in Sudheer T v. M.V. Susheela and

Ors. [2009 (3) KHC 991] to contend that hearing need not

always be personal hearing and unless prejudice is shown,

violation of the principles of natural justice, ipso facto, will not

be accepted as a ground for quashing a decision. The principle

laid down in that decision will not apply to the case at hand. As

discussed earlier, the scheme of the Co-operative Societies Act

indicates that there can be intervention with the functioning of

Co-operative Societies only on the Registrar being satisfied

that such intervention is warranted. Supersession of the

Committee under Section 32 being a drastic action visiting the

Committee members with adverse consequences, the

satisfaction can be arrived at only after hearing the affected

persons and being convinced that, in spite of their explanation,

the Committee is liable to be removed. No such exercise

having been undertaken by the officer who passed the

impugned order, the order under challenge is liable to be

quashed.

W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Ext.P15,

Order No. JRGPKD/3817/2020/CRP2 dated 24.01.2022 is

quashed, reserving the respondent's liberty to continue the

proceedings from the stage of Section 32(1) notice. In view of

the above finding, the elected Committee shall be restored to

office forthwith.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

sb W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3897/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO,JRGPKD/3991/2020/CRP2 DATED 05.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.10.2020 IN WPC NO.22630 OF 2020.

Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.JRGPKD/3817/2020-CRP2 DATED 12.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT DATED 17.09.2021.

Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.JRGPKD/3817/2020-CRP 2 DATED 01.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 13.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS.

Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REQUEST DATED 16.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND ANOTHER. Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BARING NO.JRGPKD/3817/2020-CRP 2 DATED 26.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY OF 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.11.2021.

Exhibit P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.11.2021.

Exhibit P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.07.2021.

Exhibit P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.11.2021.

Exhibit P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.2013/2010/CRP DATED 03.08.2010.

Exhibit P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.JRGPKD/3817/2020/CRP 2 DATED 24.01.2022 W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1 OF THE CIRCLE CO OPERATIVE UNION PALAKKAD DATED 04.01.2022.

Exhibit P17 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NO.JRGPPD/955/2021-CRP2 DATED 11.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. Exhibit P18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NO.

JRGPKD/955/2021-CRP2 DATED 11.08.2021. Exhibit P19 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK TO SMT. NIRMALA A.V. DATED 11.11.2021.

Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30/11/2022, PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 12/12/2022 W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3937/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.JRGPKD/3817/2020-

CRP 2 DATED 12.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 65 REPORT ON INQUIRY DATED 17.09.2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.,JRGPKD/3817/2020-

CRP 2 DATED 01.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2021.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.JRGPKD/3817/2020-

CRP 2 DATED 26.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 15.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALONG WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE BANK.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATED 23.11.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE BANK EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF THE AMOUNTS.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KRGPKD/3817/2020/CRP 2 DATED 24.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER DATED 31.05.2021 IN WA NO.1751/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Annexure                    Annexure R1 (a)
 W.P.(C) Nos. 3897 & 3937/2022


RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a)               True copy of the communication dated
                            23.12.2021