K.Riyadh vs The Corporation Of Kannur
2024 Latest Caselaw 6224 Ker

Kerala High Court

K.Riyadh vs The Corporation Of Kannur on 29 February, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

WP(C) Nos. 36807/15 & 22330/17            1



                                                              'CR'
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                         PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
                                 WP(C) NO. 22330 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:

      1        T.M.IRSHAD
               AGED 47 YEARS
               CONVENER, JANAKEEYA KOOTTAYAMA MUZHATHADAM, KANNUR
               DISTRICT.

      2        MOHAMMED IMTHIYAS
               JOINT CONVENER, JANAKEEYA KOOTTAYMA MUZHHATHADAM,
               KANNUR DISTRICT

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
               SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI



RESPONDENT/S:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETRY TO GOVERNEMNT, HEALTH AND
               FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-
               695001

      2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
               KANNUR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR-670307

      3        THE SECRETARY
               KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KANNUR -670001

      4        THE CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER
 WP(C) Nos. 36807/15 & 22330/17    2


               DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KANNUR-670503.

      5        RAJEEV KRISHNAN
               S/O LAKSHMANAN, KZS 14/71, MUZHATHADAM, P.O. CIVIL
               STATION, KANNUR-2

               BY ADVS.
               GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
               SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
               SMT.S.AMBILY
               SMT.M.MEENA JOHN, SC, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION



OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI BS SYAMANTHAK, GP




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).36807/2015, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) Nos. 36807/15 & 22330/17            3




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                         PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
                                 WP(C) NO. 36807 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:

      1        K.RIYADH
               AGED 39 YEARS
               S/O.K.P.ABDUL MAJEED, SUBAIDAS, MUZHATHADAM,THANA,
               KANNUR - 2.

      2        MOHAMMED ASHIQUE V.P
               AGED 49 YEARS
               S/O.MUSTAFA, MUZHATHADAM, THANA, CIVIL
               STATION,KANNUR - 2.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
               SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH



RESPONDENT/S:

      1        THE CORPORATION OF KANNUR
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR - 1

      2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR
               COLLECTORATE, KANNUR CITY - 670 307.

      3        THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH
               KANNUR - 670 503.

      4        RAJEEV KRISHNAN
               S/O.LAKSHMANAN, KZS 14/71, MUZHATHADAMP.O.CIVIL
 WP(C) Nos. 36807/15 & 22330/17    4


               STATION, KANNUR - 2.

               BY ADVS.
               SMT.S.AMBILY
               SRI.JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE
               GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK
               SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SR.
               SMT.M.MEENA JOHN, SC, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).22330/2017, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) Nos. 36807/15 & 22330/17     5




                                                                    'CR'
                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    ---------------------------------------
           W.P.(C.) Nos. 36807 of 2015 & 22330 of 2017
              ---------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024


                                 JUDGMENT

"Barking dogs seldom bite" is an English proverb. But in

reality, it may not be correct in our state atleast. Human-dog

conflicts are taking place at regular intervals leading even to

law and order problems in our State. If we read the

newspapers, we can see regular news in which there is an

attack from stray dogs towards small children, youngsters and

even old people. If anybody says against this barbaric attack of

stray dogs against human beings, they will be treated as

inhuman persons towards animals. The animals should be

protected, but of course not at the cost of human beings. It is

scary to see the photographs of injured small children,

youngsters and old people in newspapers because of the attack

from stray dogs. A solution is necessary for this.

2. This court and the Apex court considered the

gravity of this threat from stray dogs to the human beings in

several cases. But even then, the threat from these stray dogs

towards the human beings is continuing. A section of the people

is against the stray dogs and their demand is to kill those

dangerous dogs. On the other hand, there are dog lovers and

they are fighting for these stray dogs. That is why, I said that

there is conflict between the human-dogs.

3. These two writ petitions are filed by the

residents of the Muzhathadam Ward in Kannur District. The

grievances of the petitioners, in these cases, are against the

activities of the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.22330/2017 who is

the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.36807/2015. Hereinafter I will

mention him by name, Rajeev Krishnan, because his rank is

different in these cases. Rajeev Krishnan is an animal lover.

Whenever there is an attack against the stray dogs in the street

and they are injured from the street, Rajeev Krishnan will take

care of them in his house. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22330

of 2017 are the Convener and the Joint Convener respectively

of 'Janakeeya Koottayma', an association formed by a group of

people in Muzhathadam Ward in Kannur District. The

petitioners in W.P.(C) No.36807 of 2015 are the residents of

Muzhathadam Ward in Kannur District. It is submitted that

Muzhathadam Ward within the Kannur Corporation is a thickly

populated residential area having several houses within the

short distance.

4. Rajeev Krishnan is residing in house No. 14/71 of

Muzhathadam ward. It is submitted that for the last three

years, Rajeev Krishnan is keeping several stray dogs in his

house. Whenever a stray dog is affected with illness or met with

an accident or is having infirmity, those dogs were brought to

the house of Sri.Rajeev Krishnan and he has been keeping all

those dogs in his house. It is submitted that, initially there were

only a few dogs in his house and that was not much of a

problem for the residents. But later on, when the number of

dogs increased, Rajeev Krishnan was not able to nurture them

in a proper manner and the place has become very unhygienic

and filthy and foul smell started emanating from the house

causing nuisance to the people of the locality. It is also

submitted that during day and night, the dogs used to bark in

high volume causing sound pollution also in the locality. Since

the dogs were not kept in the cages, it used to wander in the

locality and many times, it was noticed that the leather

chappals and other items from the house were bitten and

damaged by the dogs. It is further submitted that the children

are also afraid of being affected with diseases and health

hazards from these dogs. Therefore, it is submitted that the

residents of the locality are undergoing a lot of trauma and

mental agony due to the activities of Rajeev Krishnan.

Therefore, the people started agitation. Several complaints

were filed. A meeting was held at the Collectorate Office,

Kannur on 28.09.2016 by inviting the petitioners and others

and the respective officials in Kannur District in the presence of

Rajeev Krishnan. Ext.P3 produced in W.P.(C) No.22330/2017 is

the proceedings of the meeting held at Collectorate, Kannur. It

is submitted that Rajeev Krishnan refused to follow the decision

in Ext.P3. Ext. P7 is an investigation report of the kennel

belonging to Rajeev Krishnan prepared by the Chief Veterinary

Officer to the District Collector about the action to be taken in

this issue.

5. Similarly, Ext.P2 produced in W.P.(C) No. 36807/2015

is a report recommending necessary action against the

activities of Rajeev Krishnan by the Kannur Town Police Station

to the Secretary, Kannur Corporation. But no action was taken

based on the same also is the submission. Hence, these writ

petitions are filed with the following prayers :

i) "issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the respondents no. 1 to 3 to effectively implement the recommendation and action plan in Exhibit P7 submitted by the 4th respondent in a time bound manner.

(ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take immediate action against the illegal activities of the 5th respondent as per the relevant laws.

(iii) grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as on the facts and circumstances of the case." [sic]

i) "issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take urgent action against the 4th respondent from preventing the keeping of stray dogs in large numbers in his property and house bearing No. KZS 14/71, Muzhathadam, Kannur.

ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order directing the Ist respondent to stop any kind of illegal construction contemplated by the 4th respondent in his

property without plan and permit

(iii) grant such other order that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case." [sic]

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

Standing Counsel appearing for the Kannur Corporation and

also the counsel appearing for Rajeev Krishnan.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the

contentions raised in these writ petitions and picturised the

gravity of nuisance from the activities of Rajeev Krishnan.

Rajeev Krishnan filed counter in both these writ petitions. It is

submitted that the allegations in these writ petitions are

absolutely incorrect. It is also submitted that he and his family

members are animal lovers. The house where he is residing is

more than 100 years old building and the said property housed

many generations. According to Rajeev Krishnan, he feeds

animals and takes care of animals in distress. He submitted

that, he takes care of injured animals and the Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) of Kannur is also taking

his help in providing service to animals in need. According to

the petitioner, he is keeping his stray dogs in his own property

for the last several years and they are maintained by him. It is

also submitted that after vaccination and sterilization, the dogs

are not a threat to human beings. It is also submitted that

there is no incident of dog bite by the stray dogs maintained by

him. His contention is that these writ petitions and the protest

against him are at the instance of some family members who

are against him. It is also submitted that he approached the

Municipal Corporation for getting a licence for his activities.

Rajeev Krishnan also submitted that, only nine dogs are now in

his possession and he will maintain them without any

disturbance to the neighboring people and without creating any

pollution in the area.

8. As I mentioned earlier, when human-dog conflict is

going on, here is a case where an animal lover is coming to

maintain the stray dogs. The injured and weak dogs are

maintained by Rajeev Krishnan. Whether this Court can endorse

the activities of Rajeev Krishnan is the question to be decided in

this case.

9. The Apex Court in a batch of cases considered the

similar issues in SLP No.691/2009. As per order dated

18.11.2015 in SLP No.691/2009, the Apex Court passed an

order directing all the High Courts not to pass any order relating

to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Animal

Birth Control Rules 2001. It will be better to extract the order

dated 18.11.2015:

"We would also request all the High Courts not to pass any order relating to the 1960 Act and the 2001 Rules pertaining to dogs. Needless to say, all concerned as mentioned herein- above, shall carry out this order and file their respective affidavits as directed."

10. The above order was clarified by the Apex Court

subsequently as per the order dated 12.10.2022 in Civil Appeal

No.5988/2019. It will be better to extract the same:

"In our opinion, the order of this Court dated 18.11.2015 viz. the penultimate paragraph requires clarification. We do not think it is the intent of the said paragraph is that all writ petitions and proceedings before the High Courts would be stayed and no effective and required orders will be passed by the High Courts in cases pertaining to the stray dogs. The proceedings before the High Court have not been transferred to this court. We perceive and believe that there are and would be individual cases that raise grievance relating to the applicability and enforcement of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 as well as the State Laws which may require urgent hearing and decisions would depend upon relevant prevailing facts in an area or location. Parties should not be compelled to approach this Court at Delhi, when the issues raised can be considered by the High Courts. Accordingly, in order to avoid any ambiguity and doubt, we clarify that the order dated 18.11.2015 does not bar or prohibit the authorities/ individuals including associations and organizations from approaching the jurisdictional High Courts for appropriate relief. The High Courts, will examine and deciding these cases in accordance with law, and will keep in mind the orders passed by this Court and the precedents. If there is any violation of law, the parties are at liberty and should approach the jurisdictional High Court."

11. Therefore, there is no bar in passing orders in individual

cases by this court. The Ministry of Fisheries and Animal

Husbandry and Dairying issued a notification on 10.03.2023 by

which Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 (for short 'ABC Rules

2023') came into force in supersession of the earlier Rule. As per

Rule 5 of ABC Rules 2023, no Animal Birth Control Program for

street dogs shall be conducted unless the local authority or the

Animal Welfare Organisation has obtained a certificate of Project

Recognition for conducting such a program under the rules. The

certificate means the certificate of Project Recognition issued by

the Board to any Animal Welfare organization or local authority for

the purpose of animal birth control program under these Rules.

Rule 3(1) says that the local authority may conduct the Animal

Birth Control program through their own veterinary officers, or if

required, local authority may engage the services of an Animal

Welfare Organisation which is duly recognised by the

Board for Animal Birth Control and which has the requisite

training, expertise and human resources, for conducting the

Animal Birth Control program as per the extant policy of the

Board. Rule 3(2) says that, under both conditions referred to in

sub-rule (1), obtaining a Certificate Project Recognition from

the Board shall be mandatory and Rule 3(3) says that, no local

authority or organisation shall undertake, conduct or organise

animal birth control program for street dogs without a

Certificate of Project Recognition from the Board. Rule 7

classified animals as pet animals and street dogs or community

owned Indian dogs or abandoned pedigreed dogs which are

homeless, living on the street or within a gated campus. Rule

8(2) says that, in case of street animals, the local authority

shall be responsible for deworming, immunisation and

sterilisation and may engage an Animal Welfare Organisation

duly recognised by the Board to carry out the animal birth

control program in accordance with these Rules. The obligation

of the local authority is narrated in Rule 10. As per Rule 10(1),

the local authority shall ensure the facilities enumerated in sub-

clauses (a) to (h) are available in each Animal Birth Control

Center within their jurisdiction. Rule 11 says about the

capturing or sterilisation or immunisation or release. Capturing

of street dogs shall be conducted for general purpose and

specific complaints. Rule 11(3) says that, before the street

dogs are captured in any locality, the representative of the local

authority or of the Animal Welfare Organisation shall put up

banners or public notices making announcement informing

residents that animals shall be captured from the area for the

purpose of sterilisation and immunisation and will be released in

the same area after sterilisation and immunisation. Rule 11(6)

says that, only a stipulated number of animals, according to the

housing capacity of the Animal Birth Control Center, shall be

captured. Rule 11(8) says that, all the dogs caught shall be

identified with a numbered collar immediately upon arrival at

the Animal Birth Control Center and the number shall

correspond to capture records to ensure that each dog is

released, in the same area from where it was captured, after

sterilisation and immunisation. Rule 11(19) says that, the dogs

shall be released at the same place or locality from where they

were captured and the date, time and place of their release

shall be recorded after their complete recovery and the

representative of the local authority or of the animal welfare

organisation shall accompany the team at the time of release

and from time to time, the Board may provide a suitable

application for geo-tagging the location of the dogs during

capture and release. Rule 15 deals about the euthanasia of

street dogs. It says that, incurably ill and mortally wounded

dogs as diagnosed by a team appointed by the Local Animal

Birth Control Monitoring Committee shall be euthanized during

specified hours in a humane manner by intravenous

administration of sodium pentobarbital or any other approved

humane manner, by a qualified veterinarian. Rule 16 says

about the resolution of complaints regarding dog bites or rabid

dogs.

12. Above are the salient ABC Rules of Rules 2023.

Sections 435 to 438 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for

short 'Act 1994') deals about the control over certain animals.

Section 435 says that, no person shall feed or permit any

animal, which is kept by him for dairy purpose or which may be

used for food, to be fed on filth. Section 436 says that, no

person shall keep any animal on his premises so as to cause

nuisance or danger to any person in the neighbourhood.

Section 437 says that, no person shall keep any dog except

with a licence obtained from the Secretary and every owner

shall cause his dog to be inoculated against rabies. Section 438

says that, the Secretary may order for the seizure and

destruction of unlicensed pigs or dogs straying in the municipal

area shall make such arrangements thereof as he may deem fit.

13. A perusal of ABC Rules 2023 would show that there is

a duty to the Local self government authorities to keep an eye

on these stray dogs. The Act 1994, shows that licence is

necessary to keep dogs. Admittedly, Mr.Rajeev Krishnan is not

having any licence from the authorities concerned. As I

mentioned in the beginning, the stray dogs are creating a

menace in our society. School children are afraid to go alone to

their school because of the apprehension that they will be

attacked by stray dogs. It is a habit for several citizens to go

for a morning walk. Morning walk is also not possible today in

certain areas because of the apprehension of attacks from stray

dogs. If any action is taken against the stray dogs, the dog

lovers will come and fight for them. But I am of the considered

opinion that human beings should be given more preference

than stray dogs. Of course, the barbaric attack on stray dogs

by human beings also should not be allowed. In such

circumstances, when dog lovers are coming to save these stray

dogs, I am of the considered opinion that the local self

Government authorities should give licence to them in

accordance with law. While giving licence, the local authorities

can impose conditions in tune with the provisions in ABC Rules

2023. This should be in addition to the duties of Local Self

Government Institutions to protect the stray dogs as per ABC

Rules. I am of the considered opinion that the dog lovers need

not write and speak for the dogs in print and visual media, but

they should come forward to protect these dogs if there is

bonafides in their words along with the Local Self Government

Institutions. The bonafide dog lovers can be given licence if

they are ready to protect the stray dogs in tune with the

provisions of ABC Rules 2023 and other statutory provisions.

The Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, the National Nodal

Agency for Health Intelligence in the Directorate General of

Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, annually

brings out a Publication named 'National Health Profile' which

covers all the major information health-related matters

including the number of cases and deaths due to rabies in

India. The number of cases or deaths in various years goes as

follows: 733 in 2020, 105 in 2019, 116 in 2018, 111 in 2017,

93 in 2016, 113 in 2015, 125 in 2014 and 132 in 2013.

Hundreds of people, mostly children from poor and rural

families, have been killed by dogs in our country. The deaths

and serious injuries because of the dog bite is there in the State

of Kerala also. The stray dogs are increasing every day and it is

a menace to the society. Dog lovers also should be aware of

the same. They should come forward like Rajeev Krishnan to

protect these stray dogs so that school going children, morning

walkers, old people etc., can walk free without the danger of

stray dogs. I leave it there.

14. Here is a case where Mr. Rajeev Krishnan is a dog

lover and he is protecting injured stray dogs and other

abandoned dogs in his own property. But Rajeev Krishnan

should be aware of the concerns of the petitioners who are his

neighbours. They are not against the dogs but they are worried

because of the nuisance while keeping large numbers of dogs

by Rajeev Krishnan in an unhygienic manner. Since Mr. Rajeev

Krishnan is ready to maintain stray dogs, I am of the

considered opinion that, he should approach the Corporation of

Kannur for getting a licence for keeping the stray dogs in his

premises. If such an application is received, the Corporation of

Kannur will consider the same and issue a licence after

imposing stringent conditions in tune with ABC Rules 2023 and

also Act 1994. The grievance of the petitioners in these Writ

petitions is to take urgent action against Mr. Rajeev Krishnan to

see that he is not keeping stray dogs in large numbers on his

property in an unhygienic manner. If an application is

submitted by Rajeev Krishnan, the Corporation authorities will

consider the facility provided by him and thereafter impose

stringent conditions while granting licence. If no licence

application is filed within the time prescribed by this court, the

Corporation authorities will take steps to remove stray dogs

kept in the property of Mr. Rajeev Krishnan.

15. Before parting with the case, I am of the considered

opinion that the state government should frame a guideline or

scheme or if necessary, rules or legislation in consultation with

the Union government to give licence to individual interested

dog lovers to maintain stray dogs in tune with ABC Rules 2023,

so that the dog lovers can come forward to protect these

dangerous furies dogs along with local government institutions

instead fighting for these dogs in print and visual media. The

registry will forward a copy of this judgement to the Chief

Secretary, State of Kerala for appropriate action.

Therefore, these Writ petitions are disposed of in the

following manner:

1. Mr. Rajeev Krishnan is allowed to file an application for

licence to keep stray dogs in his property, within a

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

of this judgment with all supporting documents.

2. If such an application is received, the Corporation of

Kannur will consider the same and pass appropriate

orders granting license in accordance with law after

imposing stringent conditions in tune with ABC Rules

2023 and Act 1994. The orders shall be passed within

one month from the date of receipt of the application.

4. If any license application is filed as directed above by

Mr. Rajeev Krishnan, an opportunity of hearing shall be

given to the petitioners in these Writ petitions and Mr.

Rajeev Krishnan before passing orders in it regarding

the imposition of conditions.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE smv/SKS/DM

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36807/2015

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND SEVERAL OTHERS IN THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE CHAIR PERSON OF KANNUR MUNICIPALITY ON 7.9.2015

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY KANNUR TOWN POLICE BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 21.11.2015

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2015

EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2015

EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2015

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXT.R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SPCA

EXT.R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE FENCE ENCLOSURES

EXT.R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DOG KENNEL

EXT.R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02.02.2016 ISSUED BY SENIOR VETERINARY SURGEON, DISTRICT VETERINARY CENTRE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22330/2017

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE LOCALITY ON 1/9/2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING HELD AT COLLECTORATE KANNUR DATED 28/9/2016

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 31/3/17

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/4/2017 BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALAM MANORAMA DAILY VARIOUS DATES

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.