Kerala High Court
Angels Nair vs The Principal Secretary, Foest ... on 23 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7059 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
N.ANIL KUMARAGED 53 YEARSWORKING AS RANGE FOREST
OFFICER, KASARGODE 671 121 S/O. N. SAHADEVAN, DEVA
HOUSE, EAST KATHIROOR P.O, THALASSERY 670 642
BY ADVS.K.P.PRADEEPSMT.T.THASMI
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIAREPRESNTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, C.G.O COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 003
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,REPREENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ANDHEAD OF
FORESTS FORCES, VZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
4 THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,NORTHERN CIRCLE,
KOZHIKODE, HEADQUARTERS AT KANNUR, KANOTHUMCHAL, THANA
P.O, KANNUR 670 012
5 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,KASARGOD DIVISION, OFFICE OF
THE DFO, KASARGOD 676 001
BY ADV SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL.GP - T.P.SAJAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).7107/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).Nos.7107 & 7059 of 2020 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7107 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
ANGELS NAIRAGED 53 YEARSGEN, SECRETARY, ANIMAL
LEGAL FORCE INTEGRATION, KAPPILLIL PULLUVAZHY
P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, ERNKULAM DISTRICT 683 541.
BY ADV ANGELS NAIR(Party-In-Person)
RESPONDENT:
1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOEST AND WILDLIFE
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OFFOREST AND HEAD OF
FOREST FORCE FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
3 CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION,DEPUTY INSPECTOR
(GENERAL OF FORESTS (CENTRAL)-1, MINSTREL OF
ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, REGIONAL
OFFICE (SOUTHERN ZONE), KENDRIYA SADAN, IVTH
FLOOR E AND F WIGS, 17TH MANIN ROAD, IIND BLOCK
KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560034.
4 UNION OF INDIA ,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE
CHANGE, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, PARYAVARAN
BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 003.
BY ADVS.SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA MANU S.,
ASG OF INDIA
SPECIAL GP - T.P.SAJAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).7059/2020, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).Nos.7107 & 7059 of 2020 3
VIJU ABRAHAM,J
-----------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.7107 & 7059 of 2020
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023
JUDGMENT
WP(C) No.7107 of 2020
The above writ petition is filed essentially
aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P1 report by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change, Government of India dated 25.9.2019,
issued in compliance of the judgment in WP(C)
No.1645 of 2019. Petitioner has also sought for
other consequential reliefs.
2. Petitioner claims to be General Secretary of
an NGO, Animal Legal Force Integration.
Petitioner submits that Ext.P1 report produced by
the 3rd respondent as per the directions issued by
this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, is not in
accordance with the directions contained therein.
The essential complaint raised by the petitioner
is that permission was granted for using forest
land for the purpose of shooting a Malayalam movie
in the Parthakochi, Karudukka Reserve Forest under
Kasargode Range Forest. Permission in this regard
was given by the Divisional forest Officer as per
Exts.P3 and P4. Petitioner contend that going by
Ext.P5 guidelines any such diversion of forest
land for non-forest purposes is punishable.
Petitioner also relies on Ext.P6 statement filed
by the Central Government in WP(C) No.1645 of 2019
and contend that any change in the land used
without prior permission of the Central Government
shall amount to the violation of Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. This Court in Ext.P2
judgment directed the Central Government to
carryout necessary enquiry in the matter and to
take appropriate action in accordance with law and
also to rectify the damages without affecting the
ecosystem and the natural attire of the forest.
It is in obedience to Ext.P2 judgment that Ext.P1
report has been submitted by the committee
constituted by the Central Government, Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change and in the
operative portion of the report, it is
specifically stated that the movie company erred
in dumping soil on the road when no such
permission existed and the field staff of the
concerned Range Office can be faulted for not
preventing dumping of soil and for not taking
action by way of booking a case, seizure of
vehicle and arresting of the persons involved and
also for not maintaining proper records on the
movement of men and material. It is also stated
that the DFO can also be faulted for not
exercising due diligence by way of not mentioning
extent of area for film shooting, the quantity of
soil that can be transported, etc., and also by
not monitoring from his level, once the permission
was granted. It was also ordered that the State
Government shall initiate appropriate proceedings
as per the service Rules applicable. There was a
further direction that the soil now been dumped on
the road inside the forest should be removed by
the forest department and the cost incurred can be
recovered from the movie company. Petitioner
submits that the said recommendations in Ext.P1 is
not complied and further that no positive action
has been taken.
3. Respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit
stating that it is in compliance of the direction
in Ext.P2 that a committee was constituted to
conduct an enquiry into the matter and the said
committee conducted enquiry and thereafter
submitted Ext.P1 report and series of directions
were also issued as per Ext.P1. It is submitted
that the committee has found that there is no
permanent diversion of forest land and there is no
major damages to the forest area in question.
Going by Ext.R3(a) guidelines which does not
involve breaking or clearing of forest land or
portion thereof, or assigning by way of lease or
otherwise to firm, person or organization using
such forest land temporarily and does not create
any right on such forest land of such firm, person
or organization will not require prior approval of
Central Government under the Forest Conservation
Act. It is also submitted that as per Ext.R3(b)
necessary communication was issued to the State
Government to initiate action against the erring
officials and to submit an action taken report
before to the ministry and consequent to the same,
Ext.R3(c) communication was sent directing to
remove two small mounds of soil deposited and to
recover amount incurred for the work from the film
company with a direction to forfeit the security
deposit. In addition to these directions, show
cause notices were issued to then Divisional
Forest Officer, Sri. Rajeevan M, Sri.Anilkumar N,
Range Forest Officer, Kasargod and Sri.M.Gopalan,
Section Forest Officer for submitting explanation
for the dereliction of their duties. It was
informed that steps have already been initiated to
revise the Government order vide G.O(MS)
No.37/2013/F&WLD dated 30.3.2013 which permits
film shooting by incorporating necessary
directions given in the enquiry report of Ministry
of Environment, Forest and Climate change and that
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden has informed
the Chief Conservator of Forest, Kannur to
initiate necessary consequential action pursuant
to the directions in Ext.P1 report.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
4th respondent, wherein it is specifically stated
the action has been taken pursuant to Ext.P2
judgment and that prima facie there are violations
which are to be dealt with under the Forest Act
and other local laws and the same has been
mentioned in the enquiry report and since there is
no diversion of forest land for non forest
purposes, no violation is made out under the
Forest Conservation Act 1980.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the 1st respondent also, wherein it is
contended that commercial film shooting was
undertaken after obtaining permission in this
regard and that the action of the Divisional
Forest Officer, Kasargode in having granted
permission was done in good faith and that there
is no violation of any existing laws or rules made
thereunder by granting permission for shooting,
no trees were fallen or no roads were newly
constructed nor breaking of or clearing of the
land has been undertaken for the purpose of film
shooting. It is further stated that in obedience
to the enquiry report, the Chief Conservator of
Forests, Northern Circle, Kannur has issued show
cause notice to the DFO concerned, as is evident
from Ext.R1(c).
6. After considering the arguments of the
petitioner, who was appearing in person, and also
going through the affidavit and averments of the
respondents, I am of the opinion that necessary
action has been taken pursuant to Ext.P1 report.
There will be a further direction to the
respondents to finalise the proceedings already
initiated pursuant to the directions in Ext.P1
report submitted pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment,
subject to the decision in WP(C) No.7059/2020.
The respondents are also directed to consider
whether any further additional conditions need be
imposed in the matter while granting permission to
use the forest for non-forest activities like the
one done in the present case, so that no damage is
caused to the forest and wild life. With the above
said direction, WP(C) No.7107 of 2020 is disposed
of.
WP(C) No.7059 of 2020
7. The above writ petition is filed challenging
Ext.P11 report in Ext.P12 notice to the extent it
made applicable to the petitioner herein.
8. Petitioner is presently working as Range
Forest Officer, Kasargode. He has retired from
service while the writ petition was pending
consideration. Pursuant to the directions in
Ext.P10 judgment (which is produced as Ext.P2
judgment in WP(C) No.7107/2020), Ext.P11 report
(which is produced as Ext.P1 dated 21.7.2018 in
WP(C) No.7107/2020) was submitted. Pursuant to the
directions in Ext.P11 report disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner
and Ext.P12 show cause notice was issued, to which
the petitioner had submitted Ext.P13 objection.
Petitioner contend that he is not liable to be
proceeded pursuant to Ext.P11 report and
therefore, he seeks for quashment of Ext.P12
notice issued against him. Petitioner submits that
he has absolutely no role in the issues involved
and there is no dereliction of duty on his part.
Petitioner submits that he is an honest officer,
who was always very diligent in performing his
official duties. The production executive in
connection with a film shooting tried to enter the
reserve forest (Karaduka Reserve Forest) for the
purpose of seeing the site, which was objected to
by the petitioner and the said aspect was
communicated to the DFO, Kasargode, who is the 5 th
respondent herein. The 5th respondent granted
permission for commercial shooting in the reserve
forest for 15 days as per Ext.P1. Thereupon the
petitioner issued necessary instructions to the
Section Forest Officer, Karaduka Section by Ext.P2
letter dated 29.9.2018. Petitioner while on night
patrol duty on 28.9.2018 found that in the guise
of the permission granted, the production team was
transporting materials to the reserve forest for
construction of a temporary shed on top of a tree
which was not permitted. Later on by Ext.P3, the
5th respondent granted further permission to put up
set inside the reserve forest for commercial film
shooting. Later Ext.P3 was cancelled by the 5 th
respondent and Ext.P4, a new permit, was granted
for putting up film set. The production executive
in the guise of Ext.P4 order has illegally
transported sand and mud from outside for
constructing a road through the forest which was
objected to by the petitioner, but later on the 5th
respondent by Ext.P5 even granted permission for
the same. The petitioner even denied permission to
the other vehicles to passes through the reserve
forest and submit that only on the strength of
Exts.P1 to P5 orders issued by the DFO, Kasargode,
loads of mud carrying in the tipper lorry was put
in the reserve forest, which was also reported to
the DFO, Kasargode as per Ext.P6 communication.
Later on, a complaint was preferred by one Sudhir
Kumar, based on which an enquiry was conducted by
the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests (Northern Region) and on the basis of the
said enquiry report, the 6th respondent cancelled
Ext.P6 order, granting permission for putting the
mud in view of the violation, but by this time the
damage had already been done on the strength of
the orders passed by the 5th respondent. The
petitioner was also summoned by the Additional
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Northern
Region) as part of the enquiry and the petitioner
has deposed the true relevant facts before him and
thereafter Ext.P7 report was submitted by the
enquiry authority. In Ext.P7 report, it is
specifically stated that before granting
permission for undertaking film shooting inside
the reserve forest, the application submitted by
the production executive was never forwarded to
the Range Forest Officer, Kasargode, the
petitioner herein, and the Divisional Officer
granted permission on his own without conducting
an enquiry through the petitioner and issuance of
other consequential permission by the 5th
respondent is dubious and evoke suspicion. In the
report, it is recommended that disciplinary action
should be initiated against the 5th respondent, who
is the Divisional Forest Officer, Kasargode and
that legal proceedings shall also be initiated and
that the said Divisional Forest Officer, the 5th
respondent herein, shall not be given charge of
any responsible posts in future. Petitioner
further submits that as per Ext.P8, petitioner
again wrote to the 5th respondent about the
presence of wild elephants and that it could be a
threat for shooting of the film. The petitioner
was transferred to Attappady and that the said
transfer order was under challenge before the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal
directed the Government to consider the grievance
of the petitioner and therefore the Government by
Ext.P9 order set aside the orders of transfer
issued by the Forest Department and directed the
petitioner to be reinstated in the present
station. Petitioner submits that the permission
and sanction for film shooting was given by the
Government on the basis of the recommendation of
the higher officials and the petitioner has
nothing to do with the said proceedings and he had
made valid objections from the very beginning
itself, whenever violations were found. Thereupon,
a writ petition was filed as WP(C) No.1645 of 2019
by the petitioner in WP(C) No.7107/2020 consequent
to which Ext.P11 report was submitted by the
enquiry committee, wherein a recommendation was
made to take action against the field staff
concerned of the concerned range office and also
against the DFO concerned.
9. Petitioner submits that the said direction
in Ext.P11 to the extent it affect the petitioner,
is liable to be interfered by this Court in as
much as the petitioner is the only officer who had
opposed the very film shooting and that the
petitioner's hands were tied on account of the
fact that order permitting illegal activities had
been issued by the higher ups in the Forest
department and the petitioner cannot be blamed for
the same. Pursuant to Ext.P11 petitioner was
issued with Ext.P12 show cause notice to which
petitioner submitted Ext.P13 reply. Petitioner
submits that the proceedings now initiated as per
Ext.P12 is absolutely arbitrary and unjust and is
liable to be interfered by this Court. Petitioner
further submits that since he has already retired
from service the employee employer relationship
has now terminated whereby dis-entitling the
Government from initiating disciplinary action
against him. Even otherwise the petitioner could
not be proceeded against since there is no
dereliction of duty on his part as alleged in
Ext.P12 notice.
10. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed
by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that an
enquiry was conducted and in Ext.P11 enquiry
report, certain directions were issued and Ext.P12
was issued in compliance of the directions
contained therein.
11. The 5th respondent has filed a detailed
counter affidavit wherein it is stated that it is
only on the basis of a recommendation of the
committee in Ext.P10 report that the 5th respondent
has issued show cause notice to the petitioner to
give a chance to explain his side and no other
positive action was taken against him. It is also
contended that the transfer order issued to
transfer the petitioner from his present station
is a routine administrative action of the
department and it has no relation to the issues in
connection with the permission granted for film
shooting. It is also contended that though
permission has been granted by the Government, it
is the primary duty of the field officers to
prevent any illicit activities in the reserve
forests.
12. I have heard the contentions on both sides.
13. Admittedly, petitioner has retired from
service. A perusal of Exts.P1 and P6 and the
pleadings in the writ petition would reveal that
the illegalities committed were pointed out by the
petitioner to the higher officials at the relevant
point of time. A perusal of Exts.P1, P3, P4 and P5
would reveal that necessary permissions have been
granted by the 5th respondent alone. Pursuant to a
complaint raised by one P.V. Sudhir Kumar, an
enquiry was conducted by the Additional Chief
Forest Conservator (Northern Region) and a
detailed enquiry was conducted, and in the enquiry
report it is specifically stated that all the
permissions have been granted by the 5th respondent
personally without even calling for a report from
the petitioner who was the Range Forest Officer,
Kasargode then, and that in Ext.P6 it is further
stated that certain modified orders were also
granted to the film production company
incorporating certain changes by the 5th respondent
and the intention behind the same is suspicious.
In Ext.P6 the only recommendation is to take
action against the DFO, Kasargode including
disciplinary proceedings and also recommended that
the 5th respondent DFO shall not be given charge
of any responsible posts in future.
14. The contention of the petitioner is that,
he was transferred to Attappady in connection with
the said allegations that has occurred due to the
permission granted for film shooting and pursuant
to the order passed by the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal in OA (Ernakulam)No.828/2019, Ext.P9
order was issued by the Government, whereby the
transfer of the petitioner was cancelled and he
was directed to be reinstated in the present
station. A perusal of Ext.P9 would reveal that
there is a finding that petitioner was transferred
in connection with the statement he has given
before in the enquiry which culminated in Ext.P6
report and it is due to the said reason he has
been transferred. In the said order it was further
found that non co-operation towards the senior
officials, which has been stated as a reason for
transferring the petitioner, was only for the
reason that the petitioner did not support the
illegal action taken by the 5th respondent in
granting permission for film shooting in violation
of the Act and Rules. The Government also found
that the petitioner is a person who has been
performing his duties with utmost sincerity and
truthfulness. It is taking note of all these
aspects that the transfer order issued against the
petitioner was cancelled. A perusal of Ext.P9
would reveal that the transfer itself was in
connection with the issues that has cropped up due
to the illegal permission granted by the 5th
respondent for film shooting inside the reserve
forest. So a perusal of Exts.P6 and P9 would
clearly show that, whatever dereliction if any,
that has been found in Ext.P11 report can be
attributed to the petitioner. In Ext.P11 report
there is no specific direction that disciplinary
action should be initiated against the petitioner,
but only stated that the field staff of the
concerned range office could be found fault with
for not preventing the dumping of soil. It is also
to be seen that the Divisional Forest Officer is
also found fault with in Ext.P11 report.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, and nature of the allegation and taking
into consideration the contentions on both sides,
especially, taking note of Exts.P6 and P9, I am of
the opinion that there is no dereliction of duty
on the part of the petitioner as alleged in
Ext.P12 notice. The petitioner has now retired
from service also.
Therefore, Ext.P11 report to the extent it
made the petitioner responsible for the lapses and
consequential Ext.P12 notice are quashed.
The above writ petition is allowed as above.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM,
JUDGE
pm
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7107/2020
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the GO(Ms)37/2013/FWLD
dated 30.3.2013
Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the order no F.No
11306/2014-FC dated 7.10.2014
Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the order No. R-6980/18
dated 20.12.2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED FOR
ERECTING STRUCTURES.
EXHIBIT P5 GUIDELINES FOR DIVERSION OF FOREST AND
FOR NON PROFIT PURPOSE UNDER FOREST
CONSERVATION ACT 1980 DATED 13 FEBRUARY
2014.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH THE
HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY
CCF, KANNUR WITH THE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPORT BY APCCR (NORTHERN
REGION), ADDRESSED TO PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY EXPRESSED HIS AGAINST ABOUT
MALICIOUS ACTIVITIES IN THE FOREST.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF DAMAGED FOREST BY
FILLING SOIL, ERECTED STRUCTURES AND
DIGGING THE LAND.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PERMISSION FOR VEHICLES
ALLOWED IN THE FOREST.
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT,
SUBMITTED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIRON AND
FORESTRY.
EXHIBIT P12 LICENSE DETAIL OF ALL THE ORDERS
GRANTED FOR PERMIT SHOOTING.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GARBAGE
AND PLASTICS DUMPED IN THE FOREST.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED VIDE
LETTER NO.11-306/2014-FC DATED
07/10/2014.
EXHIBIT R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7-6/2019-F
DATED 25/09/2019.
EXHIBIT R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.R6980/18
DATED 20/12/2019.
EXHIBIT R3(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.KFDHQ/28817/18-CWW/WL11 DATED
27/12/2019.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING AFTERMATH OF
MOVIE SHOOTING.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, WPC 1645/2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED FOR
FILLING SOIL.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7059/2020
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(b) True copy of the GO(MS) No. 37/2013/FWLD
dated 30.3.2013
Exhibit R5(c) True copy of the letter No F No
11306/2014-FC dated 7.10.2014 of
Government of India.
Exhibit R5(a) True copy of the order No. B3-17545/00
dated 16.7.2018 of the Aditional PCCF
Thiruvananthapuram.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AGA3-
3423/18 DATED 1-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KASARGODE
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KGAE-
3423/18 DATED 3-10-2018 OF THE DFO,
KASARGODE
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
C2/460/2018 DATED 5-10-2018 ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, KASARGOD
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. B3-
2702/2016 DATED 10-10-2018 OF THE
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST
CONSERVATOR, KOZHIKODE, OBTAINED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
C2/460/2018 DATED 24-10-2018 OF THE
PETITIONER TO DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
KASARGOD
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KGA3-
3423/18 DATED 27-09-2018 OF THE DFO,
KASARGODE RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-
06-2019 IN W.P(C) NO. 1645 OF 2019
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. F NO. F
(C) A/12.7/608/KER 826 DATED 19-08-2019
OF THE MINISTRY FOR FORESTS ENVIRONMENT
AND CLIMATE CHANGE
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
NO. R 6980/18 DATED 20-12-2019 ISSUED BY
THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, NORTHERN
CIRCLE, KANNUR
EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6-2-
2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO FWLD
A1//117/2018-FWLD DATED 25-10-2018
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO GO(RT) NO
509/2019/F AND WLD DATED 26-12-2019
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 29-09-2018 TO THE
SECTION FOREST OFFICER, KARADUKA SECTION
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KGA3-
3423/18 DATED 28-09-2018 ISSUED BY THE
DFO, KASARGODE
