Kerala High Court
George Vattukulam vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 17035 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
GEORGE VATTUKULAM,
AGED 60 YEARS,S/O. JOSEPH, VATTUKULAM HOUSE,
RAMAVARMAPURAM. P.O, TRISSUR, PIN - 680 631.
BY ADV SHAJAHAN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
4 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
5 PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
HEAD OF FOREST FORCES, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS,
VAZHUTHAKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.
6 ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
(PROTECTION) ,
FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.
7 CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
NORTHERN DIVISION, KANNUR, PIN- 673 028.
8 PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
2
(FOREST MANAGEMENT) ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.
9 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
SOUTH WAYANAD, PIN - 670 645.
10 THE DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 003.
11 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
(CRIME BRANCH), SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 024.
12 E. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MLA,
(FORMERLY MINISTER FOR REVENUE DURING 2016-2021)
PARVATHY, PERUMBALA. P.O,
KALANAD (VIA), KASARGOD - 671 317.
13 ROJI AUGUSTINE,
MOONGANANIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAVATTA.P.O,
WAYANAD- 673 122.
14 ANTO AUGUSTINE,
MOONGANANIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAVATTA.P.O,
WAYANAD- 673 122.
BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA
SRI.V.MANU, SR.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022
S.Manikumar, C.J.
Earlier, finding that some of the documents enclosed in
the writ petition were official documents and taking note of
the objection of the learned Government Pleader, on
26.05.2022, we passed the following order:
"Instant writ petition is filed by Mr. George Vattukulam, for
the following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction,
directing the State Government to hand over the
investigation now conducted under the respondent
No.11 to respondent No.10, the CBI.
II. Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to
conduct further investigation under the direction
and supervision of this Hon'ble Court."
2. When the matter came up for admission, by inviting
the attention of this court to Exhibits P12 and P14, details of
call records of Mr.Anto Augustine - N.T.Sajan and
Mr.Roji/Anto -Deepak Dharmadom, Mr.V.Manu, learned
Senior Government Pleader submitted that the above said
details of call records are not furnished to anybody under
section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
is reproduced:
"69 Power to issue directions for interception or monitoring
or decryption of any information through any computer
resource. - (1) Where the Central Government or a State
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
Government or any of its officers specially authorised by the
Central Government or the State Government, as the case
may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or
expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity
of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing
incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence
relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may,
subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be
recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the
appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or
cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any
information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any
computer resource.
(2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such
interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out,
shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) The subscriber or intermediary or any person in-charge of
the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency
referred to in sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical
assistance to-
(a) provide access to or secure access to the computer
resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing
such information; or
(b) intercept, monitor, or decrypt the information, as the
case may be; or
(c) provide information stored in computer resource.
(4) The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to
assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
He further submitted that Exhibit P5 consolidated note of
the Revenue Department dated 17.08.2020 of the Deputy
Secretary is also an official record.
4. Attention of this court was also invited that earlier,
when the learned counsel for the writ petitioner
Mr.K.M.Shajahan filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.(C)No.14625 of
2021, as party in person, for impleading himself as an
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
additional respondent in the writ petition, this court, vide
order dated 10.08.2021, dismissed the application.
5. He further submitted that Mr.K.M.Shajahan, who
wanted to implead himself as a party respondent in W.P.
(C)No.14625 of 2021 and whose request was rejected,
himself is representing the present writ petitioner
Mr.George Vattukulam, who was the same petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.14625 of 2021. According to him, such a practice is not
permissible in view of rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules,
which reads thus:
"9. An Advocate should not act or plead in any matter in
which he is himself pecuniarily interested."
6. Per contra, Mr.K.M.Shajahan, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that all the documents referred to
above are in public domain. That apart, he submitted that he
has obtained the documents from various persons, who
received the same through the Right To Information Act,
2005.
7. In the light of the statutory provisions stated supra
and the facts on record, Mr.K.M.Shajahan, learned counsel
for the petitioner is directed to explain as regards rule 9 of
the Bar Council of India Rules.
8. Petitioner is directed to file an affidavit as to how
he has secured the documents stated supra, the source and
also the persons who had furnished the same to him, within
ten days from today.
Post on 06.06.2022."
2. Subsequently, when the matter came up on
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
09.06.2022 and on 10.06.2022, there was no appearance on
behalf of the writ petitioner and thus, writ petition was
dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. Later, contending inter alia that non-appearance is not
willful and deliberate, M.J.C.No.65 of 2022 was filed for
restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed on
10.06.2022. Satisfying with the reasons assigned, on
22.06.2022, we rescinded the earlier order dated 10.06.2022
and accordingly restored the writ petition to file. We also
directed the Registry to post the writ petition on 24.06.2022.
Thus it is listed today.
4. As per the direction of this court, petitioner has filed
an affidavit dated 06.06.2022 contending inter alia that the
objections of the learned Government Pleader as regards rule
9 of the Bar Council of India Rules cannot be countenanced.
5. We have gone through the averments in support of
the same and accordingly overruled the objections of the
learned Government Pleader, on the said aspect.
6. Nevertheless, the directions issued by this court on
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
26.05.2022 as regards the source of documents and also the
persons who had furnished the same through the Right To
Information Act, 2005, have not been explained in the
affidavit dated 06.06.2022. Absolutely, there are no
averments touching upon the aspect as to how the abovesaid
documents have been obtained.
7. When Mr.K.M.Shajahan, learned counsel for the
petitioner was informed of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that a public interest litigant has to furnish the
source of information as regards the documents based on
which the same have been filed in support of the prayers
sought for, reply of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafale's case, declined to
accept the plea of the Central Government for action to be
taken against those who have leaked the official information.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted
that if the source of the information is revealed, the
informant would be put to dire consequences. Added further,
he submitted that the investigation is at a standstill. Many of
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
the accused are released on bail.
9. We are of the view that the accused whether entitled
to bail or not, has to be decided by the court where the case is
pending. Petitioner's contention that informant has to face
dire consequences is not a ground for non-disclosure of the
source of information.
10. At this juncture, it has also been noted that earlier
when the matter came up for hearing, it was the submission
of Mr.K.M.Shajahan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that all
the documents referred to are in public domain and that the
petitioner has obtained the same from various persons, who
received the same through the Right to Information Act.
11. On the aspect of disclosure and the manner in which
a public interest litigation has to be filed, we deem it fit to
consider a few decisions:
(i) In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K.Rajan
& Others [(2003) 7 SCC 546], the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarised
the principles with respect to filing a Public Interest Litigation and they
are reproduced:
"(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a
petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of
the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus,
not in a position to knock the doors of the Court.
The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the
fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as
to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises.
[See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 494,
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others
(1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary
(1992) 4 SCC 305)]
(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of
fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-
a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the
State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as
a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural
laws as also the law relating to pleadings. [See Charles
Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978)
4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon and Others v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81)]
(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number
of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in.
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as
the International Conventions on Human Rights provide
for reasonable and fair trial. In Mrs. Maneka Sanjay
Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (AIR 1979 SCC 468), it was
held:
"2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
imperative of the dispensation of justice and
the central criterion for the court to consider
when a motion for transfer is made is not the
hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a
party or easy availability of legal services or like
mini-grievances. Something more substantial,
more compelling, more imperilling, from the
point of view of public justice and its attendant
environment, is necessitous if the court is to
exercise its power of transfer. This is the
cardinal principle although the circumstances
may be myriad and vary from case to case. We
have to test the petitioner's grounds on this
touchstone bearing in mind the rule that
normally the complainant has the right to
choose any court having jurisdiction and the
accused cannot dictate where the case against
him should be tried. Even so, the process of
justice should not harass the parties and from
that angle the court may weigh the
circumstances." (See also Dwarka Prasad
Agarwal (D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and
Ors. (2003) 5 SCALE 138)
(iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to
enable the Court to look into the grievances
complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic),
the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the
legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any
violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See
Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India,
AIR 1981 SC 344, S.P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for
Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State
of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees' Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 333]
(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about
variation of any constitutional right of a group of
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may
not allow the State or the Government from raising the
question as to the maintainability of the petition.
(vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the
question as to whether the principles of res judicata or
principles analogous thereto would apply depends on
the nature of the petition as also facts and
circumstances of the case. [See Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC
504 and Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal
(Regd.), Andheri and others [(1986) 1 SCC 100]
(vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in
the realm of private law would not be allowed to be
agitated as a public interest litigation. (See Ramsharan
Autyanuprasi v. Union of India and Others 1989 Supp
(1) SCC 251)
(viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the
petitioner might have moved a court in his private
interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the
Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it
necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the
subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See
Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav
Gosavi and Others (1987) 1 SCC 227).
(ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a
Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of
investigating into the allegations and finding out facts.
It may also direct management of a public institution
taken over by such Committee. (See Bandhua Mukti
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
Morchai, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar
(1989) Suppl 1 SCC 644 and A.P. Pollution Control
Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718). In
Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West
Bengal and others [(1987) 2 SCC 295], this Court held,-
"61. It is only when courts are apprised of
gross violation of fundamental rights by a group
or a class action on when basic human rights are
invaded or when there are complaints of such
acts as shock the judicial conscience that the
courts, especially this Court, should leave aside
procedural shackles and hear such petitions and
extent its jurisdiction under all available
provisions for remedying the hardships and
miseries of the need, the underdog and the
neglected. I will be second to none in extending
help when such is required. But this does mean
that the doors of this Court are always open for
anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some
self-imposed restraint on public interest
litigants."
(ii) This Court in the unreported judgment dated 30.06.2020 in B.
Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors. [W.P.(C) No.12109 of
2020], at paragraph 45, held thus:
"45. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the
learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a public
interest writ petition which lacks bona fides, lack of
particulars satisfying the requirements of a PIL, deserves to
be dismissed with costs. Having regard to decisions
considered in Mythri Residents Association v. Secretary,
Tripunithura Municipality and Others, [2019 KHC 832], it
has been summarised by the journal thus:
"(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for
extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own
procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it
would be appropriate for each High Court to properly
formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and
discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have
not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within
three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is
directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by
the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this
Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of
the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding
the correctness of the contents of the petition before
entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial
public interest is involved before entertaining the
petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which
involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must
be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure
that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm
or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is
no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive
behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed
by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must
be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by
adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous
petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous
considerations.
(9) The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious
matter of concern for the judicial process.
(10) Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with
litigations and are burdened by arrears.
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
(11) Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking
the public interest detract from the time and attention
which courts must devote to genuine causes.
(12) This Court has a long list of pending cases where the
personal liberty of citizens is involved.
(13) Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals
against orders of conviction have a legitimate
expectation of early justice.
(14) It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the
legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of
misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public
interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a
personal, business or political agenda.
(15) This has spawned an industry of vested interests in
litigation.
(16) There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is
allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the
efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the
ability of the court to devote its time and resources to
cases which legitimately require attention.
(17) Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to
the credibility of the judicial process.
(18) This has the propensity of endangering the
credibility of other institutions and undermining public
faith in democracy and the rule of law.
(19) This will happen when the agency of the court is
utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries
have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods
and services.
(20) Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall
of democracy when the electorate votes its
representatives in and out of office.
(21) Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and
entitlements.
(22) Courts protect the rule of law.
(23) There is a danger that the judicial process will be
reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal
parameters occupy the judicial space.
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
In the light of the above discussion and decisions and in
the absence of valid explanation as to how the information
has been obtained, we are of the view that the petitioner has
not satisfied the requirements of a public interest litigation.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
S.Manikumar
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P.Chaly
Judge
vpv
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17035/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O
(MS) NO. 261/2020/REV. DATED 24.10.2020
ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O (MS) NO.
261/2020/REV. DATED 24.10.2020 ISSUED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 1634/2021/
HOME, DATED 11.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED ON 01-09-2021
IN WPC NO: 14625 OF 2021.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED ON 08-07-2020
IN WPC NO: 13678 OF 2020.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED NOTE NO.
187/U3/2019/REVENUE BY SMT. O.G.SALINI,
DEPUTY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
DATED 17.08.2020.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
THE CONSOLIDATED NOTE NO.
187/U3/2019/REVENUE BY SMT. O.G.SALINI,
DEPUTY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
DATED 17.08.2020
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE
NO.187/U3/2019/REVENUE BY THE REVENUE
MINISTER,DATED 05.10.2020.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
THE NOTE NO.187/U3/2019/REVENUE BY THE
THEN REVENUE MINISTER, DATED 05.10.2020.
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE NO:REV-
U3/187/2019-REV BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DATED 19.11.2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE NO:REV-
U3/187/2019-REV BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DATED 19.11.2021 .
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY THE LETTER NO. 84/1/2021/CCF-NC
WRITTEN BY SHRI. VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS,
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN
CIRCLE, FOREST, KANNUR TO THE ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF KOZHIKODE
DATED 17.02.2021.
Exhibit P9 A TYPED COPY OF THE LETTER NO 84/1/2021/CCF-
NC WRITTEN BY SHRI. VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS,
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN
CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOZHIKODE
DATED ON 17.02.2021.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANT SUBMITTED BY
SHRI. SAMEER M K, RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
MEPPADY, TO THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST
FORCE, TRIVANDRUM, DATED 04.03.2021.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT NO.B3-
315/2021 SUBMITTED BY SHRI. RAJESH
RAVINDRAN, IFS, ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOZHIKODE TO THE
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND
HEAD OF FOREST FORCE, TRIVANDRUM DATED
29.06.2021.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CALL DATA PARTICULARS OF
SHRI. N.T. SAJAN WITH SHRI.ANTO AUGUSTINE.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY THE LETTER NO 84/1/2021/CCF-NC
WRITTEN BY SHRI. VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS,
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN
CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOZHIKODE
DATED 17.02.2021.
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
Exhibit P13 A TYPED COPY OF THE LETTER NO 84/1/2021/CCF-
NC WRITTEN BY SHRI. VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS,
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN
CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOZHIKODE
DATED. 17.02.2021.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CALL DATA PARTICULARS OF
CONVERSATION SHRI. DEEPAK DHARMADOM HAD
WITH SHRI. ANTO AUGUSTINE.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI.
VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS, CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST, NORTHERN CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST, KOZHIKODE, DATED 17.02.2021. (PARA
1, 8, 9).
Exhibit P15 A TYPED COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI.
VINOD KUMAR D.K. IFS, CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST, NORTHERN CIRCLE, KANNUR TO THE
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST, KOZHIKODE, DATED 17.02.2021. (PARA
1, 8, 9).
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT UNDER THE
HEADING "OLICHATHEVIDE" ("WHICH WAS THE
HIDEOUT)" APPEARED IN THE DAILY "MALAYALA
MANORAMA", DATED 27.08.2021.
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
PRESS REPORT UNDER THE HEADING
"OLICHATHEVIDE" ("WHICH WAS THE
HIDEOUT)"APPEARED IN THE DAILY "MALAYALA
MANORAMA", DATED 27.08.2021
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT UNDER THE
CAPTION "M V NIKESH KUMAR WITH COMPLIANT
AGAINST ACCUSED" WHICH APPEARED IN THE
DAILY "MALAYALA MANORAMA, DATED
09/09/2021.
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
PRESS REPORT UNDER THE CAPTION "M V NIKESH
KUMAR WITH COMPLIANT AGAINST ACCUSED"
WHICH APPEARED IN THE DAILY MALAYALA
MANORAMA DATED 09.09.2021.
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE OF PRESS REPORT UNDER THE
CAPTION "ACCUSED IN MUTTIL TREE FELLING
CASE RECEIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM
OUTSIDE SOURCES" WHICH APPEARED IN THE
DAILY "MALAYALA MANORAMA" DATED
09.09.2021.
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF PRESS REPORT UNDER THE
CAPTION "ACCUSED IN MUTTIL TREE FELLING
CASE RECEIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM
OUTSIDE SOURCES" WHICH APPEARED IN THE
DAILY "MALAYALA MANORAMA" DATED
09.09.2021.
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA WPC NO 13678/2020
DATED 8.7.2020.
Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH
APPEARED IN THE MANORAMAONLINE.COM DATED
24.8.2021.
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE
NEW ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THE
MANORAMAONLINE.COM DATED 24.8.2021.
Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH
APPEARED IN THE MADHYAMAMONLINE.COM ON
25.8.2021.
Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THE
MADHYAMAMONLINE.COM ON 25.8.2021.
Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH
APPEARED IN THECUE.IN
Exhibit P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF NEWS
ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THECUE.IN
Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF SCREEN SHOT OF VISUAL WHICH
APPEARED IN MARUNADANMALAYALEE.COM ON
26.8.2021.
W.P.(C)No.17035 of 2022
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
SCREEN SHOT OF VISUAL WHICH APPEARED IN
MARUNADANMALAYALEE.COM ON 26.8.2021
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
SCREEN SHOT OF VISUAL WHICH APPEARED IN
ASIANET.COM
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
