Kerala High Court
G. Mohandas vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2025
2025:KER:62310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 806 OF 2025
CRIME NO.3/2009 OF VACB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.147 OF 2024 IN C.C. NO.3
OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:
G. MOHANDAS
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O GANGADHARAN PANICKER, RESIDING AT RANI BHAVAN, KESTON
ROAD, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SHRI.MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
SHRI.SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM
SMT.APARNNA S.
SHRI.ADEEN NAZAR
SHRI.NOEL NINAN NINAN
SHRI.ARUN JOSEPH MATHEW
SHRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SPL PP VACB - ADV. RAJESH.A, SR PP VACB - REKHA.S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.08.2025, THE COURT ON 18.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62310
Crl.R.P. No. 806 of 2025
2
"C.R"
ORDER
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
This criminal revision petition has been filed under
Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as 'BNSS' for short] by
the 6th accused in C.C. No.3/2020 on the files of the Court
of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram, assailing the order dated 09.02.2024
in Crl.M.P. No.147/2024 in the above case, whereby the
discharge plea at the instance of the 6 th accused was
negatived by the Special Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail.
Perused the order impugned and relevant documents form
part of the prosecution records placed by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner.
3. Parties in this criminal revision petition shall be
referred as 'accused No.6/revision petitioner' and
'prosecution', hereafter.
2025:KER:62310
4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the
6th accused was the owner of a building by name 'Samrat
Hotel' with door No.TC 28/1830 in survey No.709 of
Vanchiyoor Village. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were the officials of
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Accused No.7 was the
Architect engaged by the 6 th accused. 'Samrat Hotel'
building was a two storied one. This locality was proposed
to be included in the heritage zone in the Fort area.
Construction of new commercial buildings were not
permitted in the heritage zone. Accused Nos.1 to 5 having
fully aware of this fact, entered into a conspiracy with the
6th accused, pursuant to which the 6th accused made an
application for granting permit for making internal
renovations to his building. Permit was not required for this
work in view of Rule 10 (ix) of the Kerala Municipality
Building Rules, 1999. Officials of Corporation granted a
permit an Appendix-C under Rule 11 (3) permitting the
internal renovation. The 6th accused, on the pretext of
internal renovation, demolished the entire building and
constructed a four storied building in violation of the Rules.
On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of
2025:KER:62310
offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter
referred as 'P.C. Act' for short] and under Section 120B of
the Indian Penal Code, by the accused.
5. Before addressing the illegality, if any, in the
order impugned, it is necessary to refer the events before
filing of discharge petition. Earlier, the same
petitioner/accused No.6 filed Crl.M.C. No.330/2021 before
this Court, seeking quashment of the entire proceedings as
against him. As per Annexure-2 order dated 16.01.2024,
this Court disallowed the petition, holding that the
proceedings against the 6th accused/petitioner could not be
quashed. In paragraph No.17 of Annexure-2 order, this
Court observed as under:
17. In the present case, the materials
placed before the Court would disclose grave
suspicion against the petitioner, and this Court
feels that the trial Court is fully justified in
proceeding against the petitioner. In the light of
the discussion made above, I am of the view that
this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at
this stage. However, I clarify that dehors these
observations, the trial Court is absolutely free to
2025:KER:62310
analyse, appreciate, evaluate and arrive at a
proper conclusion based on the evidence and
materials placed by the prosecution as well as
the defence during the trial. The trial court shall
complete the trial and dispose of the case within
a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
6. Challenging Annexure-2 order, the 6 th
accused/petitioner approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by
preferring S.L.P. (Crl) No.1694/2024. Annexure-5 is the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court on 15.07.2025. In
the said judgment, after elaborately considering the
submissions made by the appellant therein (the revision
petitioner herein) as well as the respondents, the Apex
Court made discussion and conclusion in paragraph Nos.11
to 16 of the judgment. The same read as under:
11. We have given thoughtful consideration
to the submissions advanced at bar and have
gone through the impugned order and the
material placed on record.
12. It was not disputed and is also evident
from the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999,
that there is no requirement whatsoever for
seeking permission to make alterations,
2025:KER:62310
renovations, or internal changes in an existing
building. Despite that, the appellant acted in
conspiracy with officials of the Municipal
Corporation and procured such permission, which
was nothing but a precursor to the fraudulent
design of raising construction of a commercial
structure in a prohibited zone under the garb of
the renovation permission.
13. Clearly thus, from the very beginning,
the appellant acted in conspiracy with the
Municipal Corporation officials by giving a facade
of legitimacy to his fraudulent actions and to
establish a preemptive defence in case the illegal
acts were exposed.
14. After the complaint was registered
against the appellant and other officials, the
Vigilance Department was informed, and a stop
memo dated 27th November, 2006 was issued to
the appellant, prohibiting any further construction
activity. In sheer defiance of the stop memo, a
four-storeyed commercial building was
constructed. Furthermore, the appellant
attempted to legitimise his fraudulent criminal
actions by seeking an order for the regularisation
of the patently illegal construction.
15. From the above-stated sequence of
events, it is evident that the appellant and the
officials of the Municipal Corporation were acting
2025:KER:62310
hands in glove right from the time of granting
permission to renovate the pre-existing building.
The officials of the Municipal Corporation
deliberately turned a blind eye to the fact that the
appellant had commenced construction of a
commercial structure by misusing the permit
granted for making renovations and/or internal
changes. Moreover, they even entertained the
fraudulent application filed by the appellant
seeking the regularisation of the patently illegal
structure. Indisputably, the construction of a
commercial structure was not permissible as it fell
within a prohibited zone. Hence, the application
for regularisation could not have been
entertained. Inspite thereof, the conniving officials
raised a demand for regularisation presumably to
give legitimacy to the conspiratorial design. Thus,
the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged
are clearly established from the allegations set out
in the prosecution's case.
16. The trial Court has already rejected the
application filed by the appellant under Section
239 of the CrPC and has directed framing of
charges against him and the officials of the
Corporation who were charge-sheeted along with
the appellant with the aid of Section 120B of the
IPC. These officials have not challenged the
criminal proceedings, which is a tacit
2025:KER:62310
acknowledgment of the seriousness and prima
facie validity of the allegations. Needless to say,
that the case of the architect, whose prosecution
was quashed by the High Court, stands on an
entirely different footing. He was merely
discharging his professional obligations while
preparing the architectural design for the building,
without any active involvement in the alleged
conspiracy or the execution of the illegal
construction. There is no material on record to
suggest his prior knowledge or participation in the
criminal intent shared by the appellant and the
Corporation officials. Hence, the appellant cannot
claim parity with the architect, i.e., accused No. 7
in the chargesheet, and any reliance placed on the
High Court's order quashing proceedings against
the architect is wholly misplaced.
7. Thereafter, in paragraph Nos.17 to 19, the Apex
Court directed, as under:
17. We direct that the concerned authorities
shall be under an obligation to take suitable action
against the illegal construction raised by the
appellant, uninfluenced by any extraneous
circumstances.
18. It is our firm opinion that the impugned
order dated 16th January, 2024, passed by the
2025:KER:62310
High Court of Kerala in Criminal Miscellaneous
Case No. 330 of 2021, does not suffer from any
infirmity whatsoever so as to warrant interference
by this Court. Hence, the present appeal fails and
is being dismissed as being devoid of merit.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
accused No.6/revision petitioner that, after dismissal of the
quashment petition as per Annexure-2 order itself (order in
Crl.M.C. No.330/2021), accused No.6/revision petitioner
filed a petition to discharge him, though he also filed an
appeal, which led to Annexure-5 judgment. According to
the learned counsel, going by the impugned order passed,
the Special Court mainly relied on the observation of this
Court made in paragraph No.9 as the plank to dismiss the
discharge petition, without considering the grievance of the
6th accused/revision petitioner, even though, this Court in
Crl.M.C. No.330/2021 ordered that the trial court is free to
analyze the prosecution records to consider discharge. On
perusal of the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.
No.330/2021, this submission appears to be not correct.
2025:KER:62310
This Court did not observe anything regarding filing of
discharge petition or its consideration. What this Court
observed are matters of consideration during trial. In
paragraph No.17 of the order, the observation of this court
is that, in the present case, the materials placed before the
Court would disclose grave suspicion against the
petitioner, and this Court feels that the trial Court is fully
justified in proceeding against the petitioner. In the light of
the discussion made above, I am of the view that this is
not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.
However, I clarify that dehors these observations, the trial
Court is absolutely free to analyse, appreciate, evaluate
and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the evidence
and materials placed by the prosecution as well as the
defence during the trial. The trial court shall complete the
trial and dispose of the case within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Since the order of this Court is self speaking, no further
discussion in this regard is necessary, as this Court stated
nothing regarding discharge plea or the matters to be
considered therein.
2025:KER:62310
9. According to the learned counsel for accused
No.6/revision petitioner, dismissal of a petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would not efface the right of the
accused to file a discharge petition and it is submitted that,
the grounds for quashing a criminal proceedings and the
reasons for allowing or disallowing an application for
discharge preferred by the accused, are completely
different. The grounds falling for consideration under the
two jurisdiction are also completely different. In this
connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
placed decision of the Apex Court reported in [(2019) 18
Supreme Court Cases 69] Harish Dahiya alias Harish
And Another v. State of Punjab and Others , where the
Apex Court considered dismissal of a discharge petition
relying on the observation made by the High Court in a
petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and set aside the
order, while holding as submitted by the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner.
10. The learned counsel also placed decision of the
Apex Court reported in [2022 KHC OnLine 6839 : 2022
KHC 6839 : 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1067] Pushpendra
2025:KER:62310
Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, referring to
paragraph Nos. 17 and 18, highlighting the essentials to be
considered while considering the plea of discharge. In
paragraph Nos.17 and 18 the Apex court held as under:
17. It is also worthwhile to mention that
during the investigation, no incriminating
material or money was seized from the house of
the Appellant. Further, it is not a case where
allegations of illegal gratification or
disproportionate assets have been successfully
found by prosecution against the Appellant. On
the contrary, when the Income Tax Department
had assessed the block income tax return for
seven years, the Department recorded a refund
Rs.8843 to the Appellant after detailed scrutiny
of the records.
18. It is a well settled law that at the time
of framing of the charges, the probative value of
the material on record cannot be gone into but
before framing of charge the Court must apply
it's judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible. Indeed, the Court has limited scope of
enquiry and has to see whether any prima-facie
case against the accused is made out or not. At
2025:KER:62310
the same time, the Court is also not expected to
mirror the prosecution story, but to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, weight of prima-
facie evidence, documents produced and any
basic infirmities etc. In this regard the judgment
of "Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, 1979
(3) SCC 4" can be profitably referred for ready
reference. Having due regard to the documents
placed before us and in the light of the
submissions and discussion made above, we are
of the considered view that sufficient grounds
casting a grave suspicion on the Appellant, do
not exist. It is observed that the ingredients of
alleged offences cannot be prima-facie
established against the Appellant as neither had
he been entrusted with funds of JSEB nor he had
fraudulently or dishonestly deceived senior
officials of the JSEB to cause any benefit to RPCL
or any wrongful loss to JSEB and no evidence of
illegal gratification or disproportionate assets
has been found against the Appellant.
11. According to the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/6th accused, as per the allegation of the
prosecution, the 6th accused constructed the disputed
building, without permit during the period between
15.03.2006 to 27.11.2006 and according to him, the entire
2025:KER:62310
allegation stems on the premise that, the construction was
against G.O.(Ms.) No.144/07/LSGD dated 31.05.2007,
whereby the property where the disputed building is
constructed is included in the restricted zone under the
General Town Planning Scheme for Thiruvananthapuram.
According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner,
since the scheme itself was implemented during 2007, if at
all, a construction was made even without obtaining
permit, there was no prohibition or restriction to construct,
treating the property as one within the restricted zone
under the General Town Planning Scheme for
Thiruvananthapuram. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner pointed out issuance of stop memo by the
Municipality and the challenge thereof also. As per
Annexure-10, the detailed report, which form part of the
prosecution records, it was endorsed that, since Annexure-
11 came into force with effect from 31.05.2007, the zoning
regulations as per Annexure-11 would not apply to the
revision petitioner's property.
12. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor that, in paragraph No.9 of Annexure-2 order,
2025:KER:62310
this Court considered this contention and finally made
observations as 1 to 5 and in observation No.5 this Court
stated that, "the petitioner and other accused were also
well aware of the fact that the building was within the
restricted zone under the General Town Planning Scheme
for Trivandrum". It is pointed out by the learned Public
Prosecutor further that, even before Annexure-11, as on
23.12.2006, draft verification scheme imposing zonal
regulation was issued as per G.O.(Ms) No.293/06/LSGD
dated 23.12.2006. It is also pointed out that during 2006
itself, there was proposal to include the locality where the
disputed building situated in prohibited area and as such
no building construction permitted in the property of the
revision petitioner/6th accused, during the period between
15.03.2006 to 27.11.2006.
13. Going by the impugned order, the Special Court
addressed the contention raised by the revision petitioner
before the Special Court, while seeking discharge in
paragraph No.3. The same read as under:
3. In this petition, petitioner contended the
following: After obtaining permit for internal
2025:KER:62310
renovation, when the work was going on there
was heavy rain and due to that the whole
structure collapsed. Therefore, the petitioner
was constrained to construct a new building.
This fact has been stated by some of the
witnesses of the prosecution. Under Rule 10 (x)
permit is not needed for changing location of the
building within the compound. Rule 10 only
provides for submission of completion plan after
the construction of the building. The petitioner
submitted the completion plan and the
Corporation has directed him to pay
regularization fee. The technical committee had
approved the completion plan and this is clear
from the statement of CW22. The regularization
application filed by the petitioner is still pending.
Therefore this is only a case of alleged violation
of Kerala Municipality Building Rules and is only
a civil dispute. Thus he prays that he may be
discharged.
14. It is true that, while passing the impugned order,
the learned Special Judge extracted the observation of this
Court in paragraph No.9. In paragraph Nos.8 to 10, the
learned Special Judge stated reasons for disallowing the
discharge petition. Going by the contentions taken before
2025:KER:62310
the Special Court as extracted herein above, the revision
petitioner never raised a contention before the Special
Court to the effect that, in view of Annexure-11,
construction of the disputed building is no way restrained
based on the zonal restriction, though the same was
constructed without a valid permit. It is most pertinent to
note that, either in Crl.M.C. No.330/2021 or in S.L.P. (Crl)
No.1694/2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, this
contention was not raised. The submissions made by the
revision petitioner before the Apex Court are sated in
paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of Annexure-5 judgment. The same
read as under:
5. Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant, vehemently and
fervently submitted that the prosecution case,
as set out in the chargesheet, does not disclose
the necessary ingredients of the offences
alleged against the appellant. He fervently
contended that since the Municipal Corporation
has already decided to compound the disputed
construction, no element of criminality remains
in the alleged infraction/deviation. He further
submitted that the original building collapsed
due to heavy rainfall, and that the appellant
2025:KER:62310
merely rebuilt the old structure. As per Mr.
Basant, there was no violation of the Rules in
raising the new construction, more so, when the
application for regularisation has been accepted.
6. Shri Basant, therefore, urged that the
appeal is fit to be accepted and the impugned
order passed by the High Court, along with all
the proceedings sought to be taken against the
appellant, deserve to be quashed.
15. In the instant case, the allegation of the
prosecution specifically is that, when the locality, where
the Samrat Hotel building is situated was proposed to be
included in the heritage zone in the Fort area itself, there
was prohibition to make constructions therein. Accused
Nos.1 to 5, having fully ware of this restriction, entered into
conspiracy with the 6th accused/revision petitioner,
pursuant to which the 6th accused made an application for
granting permit for making internal renovation to the
building, for which no permit was required, in view of Rule
10(ix) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Thus,
it appears that, accused Nos.1 to 5 acted on the
application put by the 6th accused/revision petitioner to
2025:KER:62310
make internal modifications and granted permit to the
same, in violation of the Rules, in connivance with the 6 th
accused, to facilitate construction of a four storeyed
building after demolishing the existing two storeyed
building. So, starting from grant of permit for renovation
works onwards the meeting of minds between the accused,
to hatch conspiracy to make illegal constructions in the
restricted area could be seen. It is true that, the proposal
to include the area, where the Samrat Hotel building was
constructed was implemented during 2007, the draft
verification scheme imposing zonal regulation was issued
as early on 23.12.2006, though the notification as per
Annexure-11 was issued only on 31.05.2007. In fact, the
Apex Court considered these aspects while delivering
Annexure-5 judgment and in paragraph No.13, the
observation of the Apex Court is to the effect that, clearly
thus, from the very beginning, the appellant acted in
conspiracy with the Municipal Corporation officials by giving
a facade of legitimacy to his fraudulent actions and to
establish a preemptive defence in case the illegal acts were
exposed. In paragraph No.14, the observation of the Apex
2025:KER:62310
court is to the effect that, after the complaint was registered
against the appellant and other officials, the Vigilance
Department was informed, and a stop memo dated 27 th
November, 2006 was issued to the appellant, prohibiting
any further construction activity. In sheer defiance of the
stop memo, a four-storeyed commercial building was
constructed. Furthermore, the appellant attempted to
legitimise his fraudulent criminal actions by seeking an
order for the regularisation of the patently illegal
construction.
16. Similarly, in paragraph Nos.15 and 16, after
addressing the sequence of events, the Apex Court held
that the officials of the Municipal Corporation entertained
the fraudulent application filed by the 6 th accused/revision
petitioner seeking the regularisation of the patently illegal
structure in a property, where construction of a commercial
structure was not permissible as it fell within the prohibited
zone. Therefore, the application could not have been
entertained by the officials of the Municipality. Finally, the
Apex Court observed that "thus the necessary ingredients
of the offences alleged are clearly established from the
2025:KER:62310
allegations set out in the prosecution's case". The Apex
Court also considered dismissal of discharge petition filed
by the 6th accused/revision petitioner with direction to
frame charge.
17. Having considered the facts of the case, the
reasons stated by the learned Special Judge to dismiss
discharge petition is only to be justified. Thus, this revision
petition fails. Most importantly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Annexure-5 judgment, which is binding on this Court,
observed that, thus the necessary ingredients of the
offences alleged are clearly established from the
allegations set out in the prosecution's case. That
apart, if at all, Annexure-11 came into force with effect
from 31.05.2007, the draft verification scheme imposing
zonal regulation was issued as early as on 23.12.2006,
restricting constructions in the area, where the disputed
building is situated. The Vigilance, after registration of the
case, issued stop memo to the 6 th accused/revision
petitioner on 27.11.2006, pointing out the zonal
restrictions. But, the 6th accused ignored the stop memo
and completed the construction, as already observed by
2025:KER:62310
the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.14 of Annexure-5
judgment. Thus, the contention raised by the 6 th
accused/revision petitioner that, at the time of construction
there was no zonal regulation in the area, where the
disputed building is situated, could not be entertained, at
the pre-trial stage, where the prosecution case specifically
is that, before Annexure-11 itself the locality was proposed
and practically included in the heritage zone, restricting
construction of commercial building. Regarding this
contention also, the genesis of the case would show that
the same cannot be addressed at the pre-trial stage, as the
same is a matter of evidence. In such a case, interference
in the impugned order sought for by the 6 th accused/revision
petitioner could not succeed as the prosecution materials
make a prima facie case, warranting trial of the accused,
after framing charge. In view of the above discussion, this
petition deserves dismissal.
18. In the result, this petition stands dismissed.
Interim order in this matter stands vacated. It is specifically
ordered that, the observations made in this order are for
the purpose of considering challenge against the impugned
2025:KER:62310
order and the same have no binding effect during the trial
and the Special Court shall decide the case on merits, after
adducing evidence.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to
the Special Court, forthwith, for information and further
steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
SK
2025:KER:62310
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 806/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO. 02/2020
DATED 23.01.2020 IN C.C NO. 03/2020 ON THE
FILES OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2024 IN
Annexure 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2024
IN CRL. M.P. NO. 147/2024 IN C.C. NO. 03/2020
BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
09.02.2024 IN SLP(CRL) NO. 1694/2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15.07.2025 IN
SLP(CRL.) NO. 1694/2024 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2021 IN
Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
09.01.2007 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 19.04.2007
IN APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2007 BEFORE THE HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 23.01.2008
IN APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2007 BEFORE THE HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS
Annexure 10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE
INSPECTION REPORT DATED 02.04.2011 FURNISHED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION OF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure 11 TRUE COPY OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS NOTIFIED
AS PER G.O.(MS.) NO. 144/07/LSGD DATED
31.05.2007
