Allowed

Chandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2021WP(C)/24229/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition sought directions for implementing welfare schemes and protecting tribals in Aralam Farm from wild animal attacks, specifically requesting the construction of an elephant proof wall. The court held that while 36 months was requested, only 18 months is granted for completion due to prior partial works and existing project studies.

What did the court decide?

Construction of 10.5 km concrete wall and fencing completed within 18 months; Chief Secretary directed to issue directions and monitor progress.

Chandran Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 CHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KARAPPAN, ARALAM FARM BLOCK NO.13, KAITHAKKOLLI COLONY P.O., ARALAM FARM, KANNUR-670 704.

¶9

2 SASI, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. VELLAN, PUTHIYANGADI COLONY, ARALAM FARM BLOCK NO.13, PLOT NO.451/5, ARALAM FARM P.O., KANNUR.

¶10

3 THAMPAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. VELUKKAN, KOOTTUVAY COLONY, ARALAM FARM BLOCK NO.13, PLOT NO.440, P.O. ARALAM FARM, KANNUR.

¶11

4 SHAJI, S/THOLAN, AGED 32 YEARS, ARALAM FARM BLOCK NO.13, PLOT NO.776, P O ARALAM FARM, KANNUR.

¶12

BY ADVS.SMT.A.G.ANEETHA, SMT.M.KABANI DINESH, SMT.MIJI JOHN

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

2 SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶16

3 THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

4 THE PROJECT OFFICER, TRIBAL RE-SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT MISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶18

5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶19

6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶20

7 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶21

8 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR-670 001.

¶22

9 THE WILD LIFE WARDEN, IRITTY, KANNUR-670 703.

¶23

10 THE TAHSILDAR, IRITTY, KANNUR-670 703.

¶24

11 THE SECRETARY, ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ARALAM, KANNUR-670 704.

¶25

12 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARALAM FARMING CORPORATION, ARALAM, KANNUR-670 704.

¶26

BY ADVS.SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R11, SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SPL. G.P. (FOREST) FOR R1-R5 & R8-R10, SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL.G.P. (FOREST) FOR R1-R5 & R8-R10, SRI.K.P.SUJEESH FOR R7, SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC FOR R6

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶29

:: 2 ::

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Dated this the 5^th day of August 2021

¶32

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶33

By this public interest litigation petitioners, who are tribals and residents of Aralam Farm Tribal Colony in Kannur District, have approached this court seeking implementation of various schemes and programmes for the welfare of the tribals. Petitioners allege that there is inaction on the part of respondents in properly implementing the various schemes and projects sanctioned by the Government for the welfare of the scheduled tribes and thereby not protecting life and property of the tribals mainly in the largest scheduled tribal settlement colony in Kerala – ‘Aralam Farm’. The immediate necessity of the petitioners is

¶34

to prevent the wild elephant attack. Other r eliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows:

¶35

i) Issue a writ or order by way of mandamus directing respondents:

¶36

a) clear the forest growth in the plots allotted to tribals in Aralam Farm Re-settlement area by mechanized means, except the trees mentioned in Pattayam', in a time bound manner.

¶37

b) cancel the Title Deed (Pattayam) granted to the allottees in the Aralam Farm Re-settlement Area who have not occupied the plots so far, after giving notice by personal services or publication in dailies and visual media.

¶38

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶39

:: 3 ::

¶40

c) construct rail fencing along the entire length of forest boundary of Aralam Farm Re-settlement area to prevent the entry of wild elephants, in time bound manner.

¶41

d) set apart a van for the travel of tribals inside the Aralam Farm Resettlement Area, on payment proper fare, and to widen the roads to facilitate plying the buses.

¶42

e) run KSRTC bus services from Thalassery, Kannur and Kuthuparamba to Aralam Farm for the travel of tribals and staff working in the Government offices in the Re-settlement area.

¶43

f) implement the project of NABARD within a time frame.

¶44

g) take steps to solve the problems of leakage of houses and lack of toilets in the houses constructed as per the schemes of Government.

¶45

h) establish a Model Residential School in Aralam Farm in the 8 Acres of land already set apart for the purpose.

¶46

i) take effective steps to ensure proper academic standard for the High School at Alaram Farm.

¶47

2. Mrs.Anitha.A.G., learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are about 1515 tribal families residing in Aralam Farm Tribal Colony. Most of the tribals are residing in plots allotted by the Government from 2004 onwards. Due to various reasons, such as growth of forest like vegetation, attack of wild animals like, wild elephants, non identification of plots, lack of transport and educational facilities in the settlement area and dire financial conditions etc., many allottees stay away from the settlement. There are other tribals waiting to get plots in the settlement. For the purpose of providing

¶48

work to the tribals, Government is running an agricultural farm in 3500 Acres. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Government have sanctioned crores of rupees through various schemes for the welfare and

¶49

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶50

:: 4 ::

¶51

development of the tribals through the Tribal Re-settlement Development Mission. The 7 th respondent NABARD also has made a proposal of Rs.167 crores for Infrastructure Development Project for Aralam Farm Re-settlement Area. Kitco has prepared project report for the first phase of the project. But due to the ineffective and inefficient implementation of these schemes and Governmental Programmes, life of the tribals still remain in peril. The recent elephant attack deaths complicate the issue and exodus of the tribals have increased. Hence this writ petition.

¶52

3. When this case came up for consideration o n 23^rd June, 2021, this court passed the following order:

¶53

“ Taking note of the statement of Wild Life Warden, Iritty, Kannur (respondent No.9), in particular, the steps taken by the Forest Department and also the further contention that despite all possible measures taken by the Forest Department, the movement of wild animals is still continuing, even though their movement is not so frequent, on 26.11.2019, we passed the following order:

¶54

"District Collector, Kannur District has filed a counter affidavit in December 2016 detailing the steps taken by the Government. That apart, in response to the interim order passed by this court regarding fencing, Wild Life Warden, Iritty, Kannur (respondent No.9) has filed a statement dated 9.10.2019 stating that the work of fencing has been completed. However, it is stated that even after, all possible measures taken by the Forest Department, movement of wild animals are still continuing, even though their movement is not so frequent. District Collector, Kannur District (respondent No.5) shall file a further statement as to the steps taken by the Government after the filing of the counter affidavit in 2016.”

¶55

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶56

:: 5 ::

¶57

As regards the steps taken, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement filed by the Wild Life Warden, Iritty, Kannur (respondent No.9) are extracted:

¶58

“4. It is submitted that the department has been taken drastic remedical measures like 5 Km stone wall construction (Elephant Proof wall), 3.6 Km Elephant Proof Trench creation and erecting 1.5 Km steel fencing to prevent the movements of wild animals from forest area to the rehabilitated area. The steel fencing work was awarded to two contractors through competitive tenders and the above work was completed as early as in the year 2017. It is true that the wild elephants have damaged part of the elephant proof wall, and it was repaired immediately after the damage. The Government has decided to construct the balance boundary area with appropriate fencing method very soon.

¶59

It is humbly submitted that in the area covering the boundary of the Aralam Sanctuary where serious man animal conflicts are being faced by the tribals, a proposal of erecting rail fencing in an extent of 6 km and constructing stone wall in an extent of 10.5 kms has been approved by the respondents 2 to 4 and the same is implemented through the Tribal Rehabilitation Development Mission (TRDM), by the officers of the second respondent.”

¶60

On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, Ms.A.G.Aneetha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite directions issued on 26.11.2019, the District Collector, Kannur (respondent No.5) has not filed any statement as to the steps taken by the Government after the filing of the counter affidavit in 2016.

¶61

However, Mr.K.Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) submitted that he had received instructions over telephone to the effect that the project of constructing the stone wall to the extent of 10.5 Kms has not materialised through the Tribal Rehabilitation Development Mission (TRDM) by the officers of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No.2).

¶62

We are surprised that such a contention has been made by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the reason

¶63

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶64

:: 6 ::

¶65

that in October 2019, Wild Life Warden, Iritty, Kannur (respondent No.9) has made a categorical statement that the project is implemented, giving rise to the impression that the construction of stone wall is already over.

¶66

Having regard to the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, it could be deduced that Wild Life Warden, Iritty, Kannur (respondent No.9) has given an erroneous picture of implementation of the above said project.

¶67

From the above, it could be deduced that the Forest Department has not taken all possible measures to prevent the movement of wild animals in habited areas. The District Collector, Kannur has also not submitted any statement as directed.

¶68

Therefore, Wild Life Warden, Iritty, Kannur (respondent No.9) and the District Collector, Kannur (respondent No.5) are hereby directed to explain as to why they have not responded to the directions of this court. Wild Life Warden, Iritty, Kannur (respondent No.9) is also directed to explain as to why an incorrect statement has been made in a sensitive matter where life of human is involved.

¶69

The Secretary to the Government, Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to explain as to why the project could not be materialised and if so what steps were taken to prevent the movement of wild animals.”

¶70

4. On 26^th July 2021, we have passed the following interim order:

¶71

“Secretary, SC/ST Development Department/2nd respondent has filed a detailed statement dated 20.7.2021, setting out the steps taken for the construction of stone wall and fencing. For brevity, the statement dated 20.7.2021 is reproduced:

¶72

“2. It is humbly submitted that remedial measures were taken earlier in the boundary of the Aralam Sanctuary by the Forest Department by constructing 5 km tone wall, 1.5 km steel fencing and 3.6 km Elephant Proof- trenching which was completed in the year 2017. As an additional measure the Forest Department has constructed 600m stone wall in the year 2019. The above said fencing, boundary wall and trenching were damaged by the wild elephants and in the damaged area, (approximately 1.5 km) elephant proof trench has been constructed in the year 2018-19. It is humbly submitted that in the total area of 10.75 km (out of which 250m is along the boundary of the Urutty puzha) where the stone

¶73

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶74

:: 7 ::

¶75

wall, fencing and elephant proof trenching has already been constructed as stated above 6.5 Km has been fenced with solar fencing which was done in the year 2019-2021. The above said solar fencing has been constructed in the areas where the stone wall, as well as the elephant proof trenching and steel fencing has been again damaged by the frequent movement of the wild elephants. The above fencing, boundary wall and the trench is being damaged by the elephants every now and then and the tribal have again requested for fencing the above said 10.5 km area with concrete wall. The above request was given by the tribals taking into consideration of the fact that the concrete wall constructed in Valayanchal area to Kariankappu on the other side of the sanctuary is still intact.

¶76

In the mean while the Government by G.O.(MS)No.1654/2016/ SCSTDD dated 27.10.2016, granted administrative sanction for an amount of 60.75 crores for the Comprehensive Development at Aralam Farm under Tribal Resettlement Development Mission Project which includes construction of police aid post, compound wall, sewing unit, etc. Some of the items mentioned therein were not included in the guidelines for the loan from NABARD, but were included in the earlier proposal which was sanctioned by the Government.

¶77

It is submitted that a total of only Rs.4267.89 lakhs has been sanctioned by the NABARD for the RIDF 22 scheme. In the above circumstances the Government has issued G.O.(MS).No. 374/2018/SCSTDD dated 17.03.2018 modifying the earlier Government order granting administrative sanction for Rs.42.68 Crores for the above project. Pursuant to the above Government Order, Government of Kerala by G.O. (RT)No.560/18/SCSTDD dated 02.05.2018 has accorded technical sanction for the NABARD Comprehensive Development at Aralam Farm under Tribal Resettlement Development Mission Project amounting to Rs.38,02,31,192/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Crore two Lakh thirty one thousand one hundred and ninety two only) subject to the conditions enumerated therein. A true copy of the G.O. (RT)No.560/18/SCSTDD dated 02.05.2018 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a). It is submitted that the serial No.9 in the above project is Elephant proof fencing and Rs.3, 10, 71,381/- has been set apart for Elephant proof fencing. It is humbly submitted that apart from the 10.5 km having boundary with the Aralam sanctuary, the elephants are also coming to the tribal hamlet through the Cheenkanni Puzha on the southern boundary (which is

¶78

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶79

:: 8 ::

¶80

having an extent of 3 Km) and the Urutty Puzha on the western boundary which is also having an extent of 3km.

¶81

It is submitted that a proposal for construction of concrete wall for a distance of 10.5 km and erecting rail fencing for a distance of 6 km is to be executed through the ST Development Department. With regard to the 6 km distance where the rail fencing was proposed, fencing work for 3 km in the Urutty puzha on the western boundary has already been included in the Annexure R2(a) order and the work has been undertaken by KITCO under the RIDF 22 scheme along with other works.

¶82

It is submitted that KITCO was made the Managing Consultancy for the work of Comprehensive Development at Aralam Farm, Kannur and the entire work enumerated in Annexure R2(a) was given to M/s. West Construct (India) Limited. After accepting the bid submitted by them, the work order was issued to the contractor by order dated 05.12.2018 at the quoted amount of Rs.38,24,31,192/and a contract agreement has been executed by M/s. West Construct (India) Limited on 25.02.2019 for the modification of the work for the Comprehensive Development at Aralam Farm at Kannur as per the Government Order. As per the above agreement, the entire work has to be completed within 18 months from the date of award of the work or from the date of handing over the site. It is submitted that supplemental agreement was also executed for the completion of the above work mentioned in the original agreement within the time period of 31.05.2021. It is submitted that 70.5% of the fencing work with regard to the above said 3 km is completed as on 01.06.2021 and the anticipated time for completion of the entire fencing work is the on or before 30.10.2021.

¶83

With regard to the construction of the compound wall, and the remaining 3km rail fencing work at Cheenkanni puzha on the southern boundary which is having an extent of 3 km, it is submitted that the Government has accorded sanction by G.O.(Rt) No.390/2020/SCSTDD dated 28.03.2020 for the construction of the Elephant Protection Wall and 3 km fencing in the Aralam Settlement area for an amount of Rs.22 Crores subject to certain conditions. A true copy of the G.O. (Rt).No.390/2020/SCSTDD dated 28.03.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(b).

¶84

It is submitted that as per the above said Government Order, if the work is entrusted with M/s. Uralungal Labour Contract Cooperative Society (ULCCS) without any bidding process, no contractor's profit will be allowable, which is in line with existing

¶85

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶86

:: 9 ::

¶87

Government guidelines on execution of public work through Accredited agencies. However, M/s. Uralungal Labour Contract Cooperative Society (ULCCS) has expressed their unwillingness to execute the work without contractor's profit in view of the COVID 19 situation and has submitted that they will participate in limited tender option, if called for.

¶88

It is submitted that the Scheduled Tribe Development Department has no technical team/personnel to invite tenders and to execute the above works. Since it is against the provisions of Kerala PWD Manual, selection of contractor through inviting Expression of Interest (EOI) is not admissible. In the above circumstances, the Finance Department Finance Department was consulted and the Finance Department has advised to entrust the works to the Chief Engineer, PWD, Buildings/Chief Engineer and LSGD Engineering Wing for which no Project Management Consultant (PMC) charges are required.

¶89

It is submitted that this respondent is taking urgent steps to entrust the work to the PWD to carry out the construction work of the Elephant Protection wall in Aralam Settlement area so as to provide protection for the people from the attack of wild animals in the Aralam Settlement area.”

¶90

Added further, Mr.Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), submitted that a sum of Rs.22 Crores has been sanctioned for the purpose of construction of a concrete wall measuring 10.5 Km, besides fencing for 3.5 Km. Statement of facts shows that based on advice from the Finance Department, steps are being taken to entrust the work of construction of concrete wall fencing through Public Works Department.

¶91

Learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), is directed to get instructions as to the steps taken, as stated supra and also ascertain that if Public Works Department is willing to undertake the work of construction of elephant protection wall in Aralam area, the time line, for completion of such construction.”

¶92

Today, when this case is taken up for further hearing Mr.T.P.Sajan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) has brought to our notice an additional statement dated 4^th August 2021 filed on behalf of the SC/ST Development, Secretariat/second respondent and submitted that PWD has

¶93

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶94

:: 10 ::

¶95

consented to take up the construction work of the Elephant Protection Wall in Aralam. Based on the additional statement, he submitted that for the construction process, minimum time of 36 months is required as the work has to be done in a remote hill track area. Relevant portion of the said statement reads as under:

¶96

“2. It is submitted that since the Scheduled Tribe Development Department has no technical team/personnel to invite tenders and to execute the above works as per the advice of the Finance Department, the Chief Engineer, PWD (building) was consulted. It is submitted that to undertake the construction work of elephant protection wall, the PWD has requested that the amount for the said works should be paid as “Deposit”. An amount of Rs.22 crore is required for the said work. It is submitted that the Govt. Order dated 28.3.2020 was issued with guidelines to entrust the construction work to M/S Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society (ULCCS). Since M/S Uralungal Labour Contract Cooperative Society (ULCCS) has withdrawn from the project and also decided to entrust the construction work to the PWD. Therefore, the Planning and Finance Departments were consulted again and that departments expressed their concurrence also. Order will be modified suitably with the conditions for payment of the amount to the PWD. In short, it is submitted that only some technical procedure is remaining to start the construction work of the Elephant Protection Wall in Aralam by the PWD.

¶97

It is submitted that the Chief Engineer, PWD buildings has now informed that the PWD is willing to take over the work of the construction of concrete wall as proposed by the Schedule Caste Development Department. They have also informed that as the PWD has to undertake the construction of 10.5 km concrete wall and fencing of around 3 km the PWD anticipates a minimum time of 36 months for completion of the work. It is submitted that the Chief Engineer PWD, had informed the following aspects with regard to the timeline for completion of the work.

¶98

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶99

:: 11 ::

¶100

(1) The PWD can take up the above said construction work. As stated above, as the SC/ST department is taking steps to entrust the work to PWD. At present the Administrative sanction is accorded for execution through some agencies, revised administrative sanction is required.

¶101

(2) Till now PWD has not carried out any sort of investigation studies or other site explorations for the above project. However after perceiving the site conditions described by the SC/ST department the approximate timespan for the project can be laid out as follows. However on conducting necessary site studies, the exact timespan can be arrived at and it will be included in the proposal for technical sanction.

¶102

2.1 On receiving the administrative sanction, PWD can prepare the estimate and complete the investigation studies within 6 months.

¶103

2.2 for the pretender and tender process a time period of 1 month is required.

¶104

2.3 for the post tender pre construction activities such as pre qualification of tender where several features like presence of wild animals, heavy and long spells of rain, etc. which may cause hindrances for smooth progress is expected to be confronted agreement. Site handover etc. 2 months of time is assumed.

¶105

For the construction process minimum time of 36 months is now anticipated as the work is to be done in a remote hill track area.”

¶106

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶107

Eventhough Government have already taken some steps to construct fences, the same has not given the desired result of protecting habitats. It cannot be disputed that in the subject area there is threat to life. Though in the statement field on behalf of the SC/ST Development, Secretariat/second

¶108

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶109

:: 12 ::

¶110

respondent, 36 months time is sought for construction - six months time, for investigation studies, one month for the pretender and tender process and for post tender pre construction activities, site handover, etc. two months of time, we are not inclined to grant such a long period for the reason that steps have already been taken to put up a compound wall, work had already been entrusted to the SC/ST department, who could not carry out.

¶111

M/S Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society was not willing to carry out the work for the reasons already recorded. It is also evident from the materials on record that a sum of Rs.22 Crores has been sanctioned for the purpose of construction of a concrete wall measuring 10.5 Km, besides fencing for 3.5 Km. However, there could be some technical procedure to start the construction work of the Elephant Protection Wall. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no need to grant six months time to complete the investigation as entire project study has already been done.

¶112

However, taking note of the fact that PWD is entering the arena for the first time, we are inclined to grant 18 months for the completion of the work, which includes time for examination of the project, if any required, floating and finalization of the tender.

¶113

The decision to construct concrete compound wall has been taken long ago and therefore, in order to protect the life and property of the tribals living in that area, construction should be completed without any delay.

¶114

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶115

:: 13 ::

¶116

Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 (the Secretary to the SC/ST Development Department, Thiruvananthapuram; Director of SC/ST Development Department; Project Officer, Tribal Re-settlement Development Mission, Thiruvananthpauram) and the Chief Secretary, State of Kerala have been arrayed as respondents.

¶117

Unless there is proper and periodical monitoring, construction of compound wall will not materialise in time. As co-ordination of various Departments is involved in the matter, we direct the first respondent/Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala to issue appropriate directions/instructions to the concerned officials for the commencement and completion of the compound wall within the time ordered by this court. Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala is also directed to monitor the work progress.

¶118

Registrar General, High Court of Kerala is directed to send a copy of this writ petition along with a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala/respondent No.1 forthwith, for compliance.

¶119

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶120

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶121

SD/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶122

jes

¶123

WP(C) NO. 24229 OF 2016

¶124

:: 14 ::

¶125

APPENDIX

¶126

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶127

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.177/06 ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER BY T.R.D.M.
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.174/13 ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER BY T.R.D.M.
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF REPORT OF LOKADALATH, SENT BY SECRETARY DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 26.2.2016.
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION SENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT BY SECRETARY, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY ON 19.3.2016.
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF REPORT REGARDING ELEPHANT ATTACK AND RAIL FENCING SENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY ON 26.4.2016.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY REPORT DT.9.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P7(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXT.P7
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY REPORT DT.16.6.2017.
EXHIBIT P8(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF THE DOCUMENT.
RESPONDENTS'E	XHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.560/18/SCSTDD DATED 2.5.2018.
ANNEXURE R2(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.390/2020/SCSTDD DATED 28.3.2020.

¶128

// TRUE COPY //

¶129

P.S. TO JUDGE

Chandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Nevin Thomas Vs Union of India

Benny Antony Parel Vs Union of India

The Palakkad Municipality, Vs Devadas

C.K.Varghese Vs the Secretary Cheranalloor Panchayath

Central Board of Secondary Education, Vs Radhika Ramesh