MR.B.GOPAKUMAR, vs THE STATE OF KERALA,

2026:KER:17049
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
RD
MONDAY, THE 23 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1116 OF 2025
CRIME NO.V.C .1/2013 OF VACB, KOTTAYAM, Kottayam
CC NO.2 OF 2017 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE),KOTTAYAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2, 3, 4, 5 & 7:
1 MR.B.GOPAKUMAR,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.M.R.B.NAIR, SIVAPRABHA HOUSE,THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
2 MR.V.VIJAYAN,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.VASU, THURUTHUKATTUMALIL HOUSE,NATTASERI, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686006
3 MR.V.R.KRISHNANKUTTY,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.RAMAN, VATTAPARAMBIL (H),MARIKURISSY, MANKARA, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678613
4 MR.M.R.SREEDHARAN,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.A.M.RAJAN, KUMARA PALAYAM VILLAGE,PRABHU NAGAR, SELVAPURAM P.O,
COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 641026
5 MR.CHANDRAN T.A.,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.AYYAPPAN, THYVALAPPIL (H), MARIKURISSY, MANKARA, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 613
RESIDING AT THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHEEYARAM P.O. THRISSUR, PIN - 680026
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SMT.ANAVADYA SANIL KUMAR
SMT.ANJALI KRISHNA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682031
*ADDL.R2 P.S.VINOD
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.SUNDARDAS, PARAMPUNKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAPARA P.O., VAZHOOR, CHANGANASSERRY,
KOTTAYAM
(*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3.2.2026 IN CRL.M.A.NO.3/2025 IN
CRL.M.C.NO.1116/2025)
R1 BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH.A.,
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA S.
ADDL.R2 BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS JACOB
SHRI.E.S.RAJESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3.2.2026, THE COURT ON
23.02.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).38420/2024, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 2 2026:KER:17049
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
RD
MONDAY, THE 23 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38420 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
P.S.VINOD,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.SUNDARDAS, PARAMPUNKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAPARAP.O., VAZHOOR,
CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686555
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL
SHRI.THOMAS JACOB
SHRI.E.S.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY,
CENTRAL JUNCTION KOTTAYAM -REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
686001
2 THE SECRETARY,
KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, CENTRAL JUNCTION KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
3 T.A.CHANDRAN,
THYPARAMPIL HOUSE, KOORKENCHERRY P.O. , THRISSUR, PIN - 680007
4 P.A.JOSE,
PAYYAPPALLIYIL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA P.O. ,THRISSUR, PIN - 680006
R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.AJIT JOY, SC, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY
R4 BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SMT.ANJALI KRISHNA
SMT.ANAVADYA SANIL KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
3.2.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1116/2025, THE COURT ON 23.02.2026, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 3 2026:KER:17049
CR
COMMON ORDER/JUDGMENT
rd
Dated this the 23 day of February, 2026
Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in C.C.No.02/2017 on the files of
the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, (Vigilance),
Kottayam, have filed Crl.M.C.No.1116/2025 and the prayers are as
under:
(i) Quash Annexure-E F.I.R. in Crime V.C.1 of 2013 of
VACB, Kottayam and Annexure-F, final report
and all proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2017 of Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam;
(ii) Issue such other orders as may be necessary in the
interest of justice.
2. W.P.(C).No.38420/2024 has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayers are as
under:
I. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate
writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside
the order at Ext.P5 considering the Ext.P2
vigilance Report.

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 4 2026:KER:17049
II. Issue a writ or order in mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction, and order
commanding the respondents 1 and 2, to re-allot
the Room No.10 and also to sanction an
additional room for the said SC/ST community
on the basis of Ext.P1 circulars.
III. Issue a writ or order in mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction, and order
commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to take
appropriate action against the respondent
No.3 & 4 for the unauthorized sub-letting of
the Room No.10 reserved for SC/ST
community.
IV. To dispense with filing of English translation of
documents in Malayalam.
V. To grant such other relief as may be prayed for
and as the Court deems fit to grant.”
3. Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel appearing for
th
the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1116/2025 and for the 4 respondent in
W.P.(C)No.38420/2024; Sri.P.Dalbi Emmanuel, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 38420/2024; and Sri.Ajit Joy,
learned Standing Counsel for Kottayam Municipality appearing for

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 5 2026:KER:17049
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.38420/2024. Though notice
rd
was duly served on the 3 respondent in W.P.(C)No.38420/2024,
there is no appearance on his behalf. Also heard the learned Special
Public Prosecutor.
4. First of all, I am inclined to address the contentions
raised in the writ petition. The facts leading to the filing of the writ
petition are as under:
1. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC)
community. The petitioner is aggrieved by the irregular
nd
allotment by the 1st and 2 respondent, of Room No.10,
reserved for SC/ST community in Rajiv Gandhi
Shopping Complex, (Complex) Kottayam owned by the
rd
respondent No.1 herein. The 3 respondent is the present
licensee of the said room, but the possession and
enjoyment of the same for the last so many years is by
one Jewellery named Josco Jewellery.
2. That as per circulars of the government, when the
Panchayats/Municipalities/Development Authorities
construct shopping complexes and give the same on rent
to the public, 10% of the same ought to be reserved for
SC/ST community. The procedure prescribed by the

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 6 2026:KER:17049
government for allotment of reserved rooms in shopping
complexes are as per government circulars bearing No.
15735/C3/90/ LSG dated 08/05/1990, 19217/C2/91/LSG
dated 10/05/1991 and 3480/D3/96/LSG dated
12/08/1996. That as per the above circulars the
government has very clearly stated the methods
/procedure of allotment being as follows:-
(a) 10% of the rooms in all shopping complexes are strictly to
be reserved for SC/ST community.
(b) Such reserved rooms should not be allotted by public
auction, or by quotations having competitive nature. The
rent ought to out fix by taking the average rent received
from the other rooms of the complex, and the reserved room
be allotted by draw of lots and given to the SC/ST allottee
for a fixed period of time.
(c) These procedure ought to be strictly followed in case of
new complexes and in case of other complexes when the
existing tenant vacates and a new tenant is to be allotted,
the above procedure shall be followed.
(d) Further, as per the circulars the government has
prescribed that if the total number of rooms in a shopping
complex is more than 5 and less than 10, the reserved room
will be one and if the total number of rooms is more than 10,
the reservation ought to be 10% of the total rooms. It is also

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 7 2026:KER:17049
prescribed that the security deposit to be taken should not be
more than 3 month's rent. The government has also taken
note of the fact that the guidelines in the circulars are not
being properly complied with by the
Panchayats/Municipalities / Development Authorities and
therefore has made it clear that the guidelines have to be
strictly followed and that the Secretary of the concerned
Panchayat/Municipality/ Development Authority shall be
held responsible.
5. According to the writ petitioner, he is a member of
Scheduled Caste community and he is aggrieved by the irregular
allotment of Room No.10, reserved for SC/ST community Rajiv
Gandhi Shopping Complex (for short, ‘complex’ hereinafter) owned
st
by the 1 respondent Kottayam Municipality. According to the writ
petitioner, as per Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) circulars, produced in
the writ petition, 10% of the rooms in the complex should be
reserved for SC/ST community and for which, the procedure
prescribed in Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) to be followed. It is
contended by the writ petitioner that as per Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 8 2026:KER:17049
P1(c), the allotment of rooms meant for the SC/ST community
should not be made through public auction or by inviting
competitive quotations. It has been specifically provided that when
multiple applicants compete for the room, the beneficiary shall be
selected by bid, after fixing the rent for the room by taking into
account the average rent of other rooms in the same complex.
Therefore, the contention raised by the writ petitioner is that now
the writ petitioner impugns Ext.P5 order, dated 27.03.2023 issued
by the Secretary, Kottayam Municipality rejecting the contentions
raised by the writ petitioner in view of the directions issued in an
earlier writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C).No.4339/2023. The learned
counsel for the writ petitioner read out Ext.P1(a) circular, dated
08.05.1990, Ext.P1(b) circular, dated 10.05.1991 and Ext.P1(c)
circular, dated 12.08.1996, as per which 10% of the total rooms in
the complex, i.e., Room No.10, is reserved for the SC/ST
community. It is argued that, while selecting the beneficiary, the
Municipality adopted the method of public auction by allotting the

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 9 2026:KER:17049
room to the highest bidder, instead of following the procedure
prescribed in the circulars, which would mandate selection by
bid/draw of lots among eligible applicants after fixing the rent
based on the average rent of other rooms in the complex. It could
be seen that this was done earlier in the year 1995. At present, as
could be seen from the records including the records in
Crl.M.C.No.1116/2025, initially, the room was allotted to V.Vijayan
and in turn, which was transferred to V.R.Krishnankutty and on the
strength of a power of attorney in favour of M.R.Sreedharan. Then
the room was transferred in the name of Chandran T.A. According
to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, since the selection of
V.Vijayan as the beneficiary was made without following the
procedure prescribed under Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) circulars,
the selection at the inception is illegal and therefore, the same is
liable to be interfered with, so as to initiate the process of selecting
the beneficiary afresh, in accordance with law. In this connection,
the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the circulars

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 10 2026:KER:17049
and also produced Exts.P6 to P10 along with a petition to receive
the same. Ext.P6 is the order, dated 27.04.2013 in
Crl.M.P.No.514/2013 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and
Special Judge, Kottayam, under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter), deputing the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau
(VACB), Kottayam Unit, to inspect Room No.10, verify its
occupation and usage, and prepare a mahazar in connection with
the complaint relating to the illegal occupation of the SC/ST-
reserved room. Ext.P7 is the inspection report and mahazar, dated
27.04.2013 prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
VACB, Kottayam Unit, pursuant to Ext.P6, confirming that Room
th
No.10 was illegally occupied by the 4 respondent; that only an
extent of 216 sq. ft. was identifiable, though the municipal records
show an extent of 560 sq. ft., the remaining area having been
merged and absorbed into the premises of Josco Jewellery; and that
the room was being used for gold ornament repair work by an

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 11 2026:KER:17049
employee of Josco Jewellery, thereby indicating structural
alteration, subletting, and destruction of the SC/ST reservation
facility. Ext.P8 is the order, dated 29.04.2013 in Crl.M.P.
No.514/2013 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special
Judge, Kottayam, directing registration of FIR and further
investigation based on Ext.P7, thereby prima facie noticing the
alleged illegality and misuse of Room No.10. Ext.P9 is the statement
dated 01.12.2016 recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of
V.Vijayan, wherein, he had disclosed a conspiracy between
municipal officials and private parties, including inducement to
apply for the reserved room under the SC/ST quota, receipt of
money, and the subsequent integration of Room No.10 into the
jewellery establishment, which, according to the writ petitioner, is
relevant to the contention that such allegations cannot be brushed
aside at the stage of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Ext.P10 is
the sketch prepared by Sri.M.D.Yusuf, Municipal Engineer,
Changanacherry, depicting the present physical condition of Room

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 12 2026:KER:17049
No.10 and showing its integration into the Josco Jewellery building
after structural modifications.
6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would
contend that, prior to the substitution of Section 214 of the Kerala
Municipality Act, 1994 by Section 215, the provision stood as
follows:
214. Procedure for acquisition of
immovable property under the Land
Acquisition Act.— (1) Any immovable property
which a Municipality is authorised by this Act to
acquire may be acquired in accordance with the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the time
being in force, and on payment of the compensation
awarded under the said Act in respect of such
property and of any other charges incurred in
acquiring it, the said property shall vest in the
Municipality:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall
be deemed to prevent any Municipality from
acquiring immovable property either through
private purchase or any free surrender.
(2) The Municipality shall implead in all Court

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 13 2026:KER:17049
proceedings relating to the acquisition of land for the
Municipality.
The learned counsel would further submit that Section 215 was
subsequently introduced in substitution of Section 214, which reads
as follows:
215. Power of Municipality to acquire
and dispose of property.- (1) A Municipality
may, in the manner prescribed, acquire any
property such as land or building within or outside
its Municipal area or dispose of any of its properties
with the prior approval of the Government for
providing any arrangement or facility for a public
purpose.
(2)(a) A Municipality may construct
commercial or other buildings and let them out to the
public who need them on licence and may charge
such fees as it may fix for the use and occupation of
the same in the manner prescribed.
(b) [x x x]
Provided that after the said period, a licence may be
renewed subject to such terms and conditions as

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 14 2026:KER:17049
may be fixed at that time.
(c) In all cases except renewal of licence or
rehabilitation of a licensee, licence shall be granted
only by public auction or tender.
7. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner that Section 214(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994
which was in force at the time of allotment of Room No.10 to
V.Vijayan (in 1995) mandated the manner in which municipal
properties are to be dealt with. It was provided that “as may be
prescribed”. It is contended that, in the absence of statutory rules,
Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) circulars constituted the prescribed
procedure and the same should have been followed. It is further
contended that, in the present case, it is evident from Ext.P7
enquiry report of the Vigilance that the said procedure was not
followed. A statement has been filed by Sri.Ajit Joy, learned
Standing Counsel for Kottayam Municipality appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.(C).No.38420/2024. In paragraph

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 15 2026:KER:17049
No.7, it has been stated as under:
“7. However, records reveal that a quotation from the
SC/ST category was invited on 28.06.1995, and the
quotation of Shri N. Vijayan, who had quoted the highest
amount, was accepted. Accordingly, a contract
agreement was executed for the period 29.01.1996 to
28.01.1999. Subsequently, due to financial difficulties
faced by the licensee, the name was changed to Shri
Krishnankutty V.R. Vattaparambil, as per CR No. 64
dated 17.03.1998, with a 15% increase in rent as
mutually agreed.”
Thus, it is discernible that, at the time when Room No.10 was
allotted to V.Vijayan, the procedure prescribed in Exts.P1(a), P1(b)
and P1(c) was not complied with. Thereafter, a vigilance enquiry
was ordered and the same culminated its finality, which is under
challenge by accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in Crl.M.C.No.1116/2025.
8. The learned senior counsel, Sri.S.Sreekumar, argued
that, by way of the amendment introduced with effect from
24.03.1999, Section 214 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 was

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 16 2026:KER:17049
substituted by incorporating Section 215. It is further argued that, in
terms of the proviso to sub-section 2(a) of Section 215 of the Kerala
Municipality (Amendment) Act, 1999, a licence may be renewed
subject to such terms and conditions “as may be fixed at that time”.
It is conceded by both sides that the use of the phrase “in the
manner prescribed” in Section 215 of the Kerala Municipality
(Amendment) Act, 1999, led to the framing of the Kerala
Municipality Rules, 2000, and that Rules 10, 11 and 12 would
govern the exercise of power under Section 215.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality also
supported the points urged by the learned senior counsel
Sri.S.Sreekumar. According to the learned senior counsel, the
Kerala Municipality Act, as it stood prior to 24.03.1999, got
amended on that date by introducing Section 215, including the
proviso to Section 215(2). It is submitted that, consequent to the
said amendment, Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) circulars no longer
have any legal force, notwithstanding the fact that they were taken

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 17 2026:KER:17049
into consideration at the time of allotment of Room No.10 to
V.Vijayan. According to the learned senior counsel and the learned
Standing Counsel for the Municipality, the challenge against the
said decision raised in the year 2025, is hopelessly barred by delay
and laches. Both of them submitted that this is evident from
Annexures L and M produced in Crl.M.C.No.1116/2025. Thereafter,
the Municipality, in terms of the proviso to sub-section 2(a) of
Section 215 executed agreements by imposing conditions and the
licence has been renewed and at present, Sri.Chandran T.A. has
th
been in occupation of the building and the allegation that the 6
accused viz., Sri.P.A.Jose has been occupying the building is
absolutely incorrect.
10. While addressing this argument, it is pertinent to
consider certain specific inputs now brought out. That is to say,
Ext.P7 is the inspection report and mahazar, dated 27.04.2013
prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kottayam
Unit, pursuant to Ext.P6, confirming that Room No.10 was illegally

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 18 2026:KER:17049
th
occupied by the 4 respondent; that only an extent of 216 sq. ft. was
identifiable, though the municipal records show an extent of 560 sq.
ft., the remaining area having been merged and absorbed into the
premises of Josco Jewellery; and that the room was being used for
gold ornament repair work by an employee of Josco Jewellery,
thereby indicating structural alteration, subletting, and destruction
of the SC/ST reservation facility. Ext.P9 is the statement dated
01.12.2016 recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of V.Vijayan,
wherein, he had disclosed a conspiracy between municipal officials
and private parties, including inducement to apply for the reserved
room under the SC/ST quota, receipt of money, and the subsequent
integration of Room No.10 into the jewellery establishment, which,
according to the writ petitioner, is relevant to the contention that
such allegations cannot be brushed aside at the stage of quashing
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Ext.P10 is the sketch prepared by
Sri.M.D.Yusuf, Municipal Engineer, Changanacherry, depicting the
present physical condition of Room

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 19 2026:KER:17049
No.10 and showing its integration into the Josco Jewellery building
after structural modifications. Thus, it is discernible from the
prosecution records that room No.10 has been in possession of the
th
6 accused though the licence being renewed/issued in the name of
th
the 7 accused.
11. At this juncture, a significant aspect that remains is that
th
the 6 accused had approached this Court by filing
Crl.M.C.No.2362/2017. The learned Single Judge of this Court
considered the prayer for quashing the final report in C.C.No.
02/2017 and, for the reasons stated in paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10 and
th
11, quashed the final report insofar as the 6 accused is concerned.
Paragraph Nos. 8 to 11 read as under:
“8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, this Court will address the points
raised in detail herebelow:
This Court will first take note of the prosecution case as
revealed from Annexure-F Final Report, the relevant
contents of which are extracted herebelow:
“A1 who was the Secretary of the Kottayam

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 20 2026:KER:17049
Municipality for the period from 1994-1997
entered into criminal conspiracy with A2,
who was the Municipal councilor during
1988-1995, and as a part of the said
conspiracy, A2 issued a note to the
Municipal council Kottayam for tendering
the room reserved for Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe in Rajiv Gandhi Municipal
Shopping Complex against the existing
procedure of awarding room by taking lot
from the applicants without saving the
interest of the public, A2 entered into
criminal conspiracy with A3 Vijayan and
obtained Caste Certificate and application.
A3 submitted application and allotted the
room in his name and in continuation A3
entered into conspiracy with A4 Krishnan
Kutty and A5 Sreedharan. Further A3, got
an application on 15.01.1997 and in
continuation of conspiracy A5 entered into
conspiracy with A6 and permitted to use the
said room for the business purpose of A6
and later in continuation of this conspiracy
A5 transferred the room to A7. A7 in

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 21 2026:KER:17049
conspiracy with A6, facilitated the
enjoyment of the said room to A6 and the
acts of A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A7 has caused
pecuniary advantage to A6 in the form of
exclusive possession of room which he still
enjoys and these acts were without public
interest and thereby committed offences
punishable U/s 13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and
120B of IPC.”
9. The room in question was initially allotted to
Vijayan and thereafter, to Krishnan Kutty, both
persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community.
As a matter of fact, the room allotted to Krishnan Kutty
was pursuant to a joint application submitted by
accused nos.3 and 4, and based on a decision taken by
the Municipal council in this regard. It appears that, a
power of attorney has been executed by A4, in favour
of A5 Sreedharan, who in turn made an application
before the Municipality to transfer the lease to A7
Chandran, who is also a member of the Scheduled
Caste community. It is in respect of this, Annexure-K
notice was issued, followed by Annexure-L licence
agreement. In short, room no.10 which is earmarked

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 22 2026:KER:17049
for members of SC and ST community was always
given to the members of the same community. The
transfers, which were effected pursuant to the request
of A3 Vijayan, A4 Krishnan Kutty acting through A5
Sreedharan, so as to allot the room ultimately to A7
cannot be found fault with, as the same is permissible
going by Section 215 (4) of the Kerala Municipality Act,
1994.
10. The transfer effected in favour of A7 Chandran was
pursuant to a municipal resolution dated 19.06.2005
(as stated in page no.2 of Annexure-L license deed),
wherefore, the liability cannot be fastened on A1 and
A2 who were not holding the offices of Secretary and
Councilor respectively at the relevant time. Therefore,
the conspiracy theory propounded by the prosecution
that there was conspiracy between the accused persons
from the very beginning crumbles to the ground.
Unless and until, there exists conspiracy from the time
of initial allotment in favour of A3 Vijayan, upto the
final allotment to A7 Chandran, liability cannot be
fastened on A1 and A2. There is no allegation of any
corruption as against the person, who is the signatory
to Annexure-L license deed; nor is there any allegation
with respect to the allotment of the room to A7

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 23 2026:KER:17049
Chandran. If that be so, the charges of corruption
against A1 and A2, who were not officiating at the time
cannot be countenanced.
11. This Court would endorse the submissions made by
the learned Senior Counsel that the conspiracy as
alleged above in the final report is not inter-linked or
having continuity with each other. At any rate,
petitioner/A6 was not in picture at the time when the
initial conspiracy was allegedly hatched between
accused nos. 1 and 2; and thereafter, between accused
nos. 2 and 3. The specific allegation is that, pursuant to
a conspiracy, A2 obtained an application from A3 and
got the room allotted to him. What benefit A2 had
obtained by such allotment is not decipherable.
Secondly, the conspiracy alleged by and between the
various accused persons should extend till it reaches
the petitioner/A6, failing which, A6 cannot be roped in
to the crime. Admittedly, the petitioner/A6 was not in
picture at the first two phases of conspiracy. The third
phase is allegedly between accused no.3 on the one
hand and accused nos.4 and 5 on the other. Yet another
conspiracy is alleged between accused nos. 5 and the
petitioner/A6, as per which, A6 was put in possession
of the property and ultimately, the room was

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 24 2026:KER:17049
transferred in the name of A7, is the allegation levelled.
st
This Court notice that the 1 accused is no more and the
prosecution case as against him stands abated. 2nd
accused was in service only from 1988 to 1995. The
alleged conspiracy between A3 and A4 can take place
only in the year 1997, inasmuch as an application to
transfer of the room in favour of A4 was made only on
15.01.1997, at which point of time A2 was not in
service. If that be so, no offence under the P.C. Act is
maintainable against A2. In short, if the prosecution
case is completely believed, an offence under the P.C.
Act can be inferred only in respect of the first two
phases of the conspiracy between accused nos. 1, 2 and
3. As regards the third and fourth phases of
conspiracy, there is no role for the public servants. If
that be so, an offence under the P.C. Act can hardly lie
as against the petitioner/A6. If at all there is a
conspiracy constituting any offence, the same can only
be under the general penal law; and not under the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the
top of all, none of the witnesses have given any
statement alleging conspiracy between the accused
persons.”

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 25 2026:KER:17049
12. Coming to the prayers in the writ petition, it is
discernible that the initial allotment in favour of V.Vijayan was
made without following the procedure prescribed in Exts.P1(a),
P1(b) and P1(c). By virtue of the amendment to Section 214 of the
Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 1999 with effect from
24.03.1999, by introducing Section 215, the Municipality was vested
with the power to deal with its properties, and the grant of licence in
respect of municipal properties is governed by Section 215 of the
Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 1999, as amended with
effect from 24.03.1999. In view of the above, Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and
P1(c) have no legal effect in terms of Section 215 of the Kerala
Municipality (Amendment) Act, 1999 after 24.03.1999. Rules 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Kerala Municipality Rules, 2000 provide as
under:
6. Transfer of Municipality's own property.-
The transfer of Municipality's own property shall be in
accordance with sub-Section (1) of section 215 and Form
II in Schedule II appended to these rules.
7. Grant of Municipality's own property on

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 26 2026:KER:17049
lease. -(1) The Municipality may, subject to the conditions
mentioned in section 215 of the Act, on licence basis for
periods as fixed by the Council, give on rent or lease, its
own buildings.
(2) The transfer under sub-rule (1) shall be in accordance
with Form No. III in Schedule III to these rules.
8. Transfer of property vested in the
Municipality. -(1) Property of the Municipality not
owned but vested in it may be granted on lease without
violating the terms on which it was vested in it.
(2) The disposal under sub-rule (1) shall be in accordance
with the Form in Schedule III to these rules.
9. Grant on lease of the sides of roads and
streets .-(1) The Municipality shall have the power to
lease out the sides of roads and streets vested in it, subject
to the term fixed by the Municipality and subject to the
restrictions and limitations that may be fixed by the
Government under Section 368 (5).
(2) The grant of a lease under sub-rule (1) shall be in
accordance with the Form in Schedule III to these rules.
10. Reservation for Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe categories.- (1) The
Municipality shall reserve for persons belonging to
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Categories, ten per
cent of each item of the shoprooms, bunks, stalls etc.
granted on rent or lease upon licence and the same

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 27 2026:KER:17049
shall be granted by inviting applications by
Notification from such categories alone.
(2) Where there are no applicants from the
category concerned even after inviting applications by
notification, for the shoprooms, bunks etc. reserved
under sub-rule (1), the same may be allotted to other
categories, provided steps are taken to allot the next
arising vacant space for persons belonging to such
category.
11. Transfers to be either in public auction
or through Tenders.- The transfer of the property of
the Municipality, through sale, except renewal of
licences, rehabilitation of licensees, granting of lease,
letting out on rent, shall be either in public auction or
by inviting tenders.
12. The Municipalities not to dispose of
property transferred to them by Government.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 8, the
Municipalities shall not sell, transfer, alienate, create
any encumbrance on, or otherwise dispose of, any
property transferred to them by Government under
sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act.”
13. Today, when the order is about to be pronounced, the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner produced a Division Bench

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 28 2026:KER:17049
judgment in W.A.No.306/2024 dated 09.07.2025 where the
judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.
(c).No.3835/2023 was set aside. The learned counsel for the writ
petitioner would submit that in paragraph No.7 of the writ appeal
judgment, the Division Bench held as under:
“7. No doubt, the learned Single Judge relied upon the
provisions of Section 575 of the Act, which is also
extracted herein below; the repeal of the earlier Acts
does not in any manner affect the promulgation of the
circular.
575. Repeal and saving.
(1) With effect on and from the
commencement of this Act the Kerala
Municipalities Act, 1960 (14 of 1961),
the Kerala Municipal Corporations
Act, 1961 (30 of 1961), the Guruvayur
Township Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the
Kerala Municipalities Ordinance, 1994
(2 of 1994) and the provisions of the
Kerala Local Authorities (Constitution
and Preparation of Electoral Rolls)
Act, 1994 (4 of 1994), in so far as they
relate to Municipalities, shall stand
repealed.

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 29 2026:KER:17049
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal-
(i)the committees in office at the
commencement of this Act appointed
by the Government to exercise the
powers perform the functions of the
municipal Councils; the Chairman of
the Standing Committees under the
Kerala Municipalities Act 1960 (14 of
1960) and the Collectors appointed by
the Government to exercise the powers
and perform the functions of the
Councils, the Mayors and the Standing
Committees under the Municipal
Corporation Act, 1961 (30 of 1961) in
office at such commencement and the
Guruvayoor Township Committee
constituted under the Guruvayoor
Township Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) shall
continue, as if it were the Municipal
Councils or Corporation Councils or
Township Committees constituted,
respectively, under the said
enactments, till corresponding
Municipalities constituted under this
Act; or they are dissolved by the
Government, whichever occurs earlier:

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 30 2026:KER:17049
(ii)any appointment, rules, including
rules in the Schedules to the repealed
Acts, bye-laws, regulations or forms
made, notifications, notice, order,
scheme or direction issued, tax fee or
fine or other penalty, imposed, licence,
permission or exemption granted
under the repealed enactments and in
force at such commencement shall, in
so far as they are not inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act, continue to
be in force as if made, issued, imposed
or granted as the case may be by the
corresponding Municipalities under
the provisions of this Act until
superseded, amended or modified by
any appointment, rules, bye-laws or
regulations, notifications, notice,
order, scheme, direction, tax, fee, fine
or other penalty, licence, permission or
exemption, made, issued, imposed or
granted as the case may be under this
Act;”
According to the learned counsel, in view of the judgment of the

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 31 2026:KER:17049
learned Single Judge as well as the judgment in the writ appeal,
Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) circulars shall continue in operation,
since its operation was saved by Section 575 of the Kerala
Municipality Act, 1994.
14. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for
th
the 4 respondent that in view of Rule 11 of the Kerala Municipality
Rules, 2000, all modes of transfers provided under Rules 6 to 11
shall be by public auction or through tenders. According to the
learned senior counsel, Section 215(2)(c) of the Kerala Municipality
(Amendment) Act, 1999 came into force w.e.f. 24.03.1999, provides
that, in all cases except renewal of licence or rehabilitation of a
licensee, licence shall be granted only by public auction or tender.
Therefore, the procedure laid down under Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and
P1(c) circulars by selecting the beneficiary for SC/ST community
Municipality is no more available and in such cases, Rule 11 shall be
applied.
15. Reading Section 215 of the Kerala Municipality
(Amendment) Act, 1999 deals with power of Municipality to acquire

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 32 2026:KER:17049
and dispose of property, Section 215 provides that a Municipality
may, in the manner prescribed, acquire any property such as land
or building within or outside its Municipal area or dispose of any
of its properties with the prior approval of the Government for
providing any arrangement or facility for a public purpose.
16. On perusal of Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c), it is
emphatically clear that the same have two parts. The first part is
ensuring reservation of 10% room to SC/ST community and the
second part is pertaining to the mode of allotment and the same is
by taking lot among the number of applicants, who applied for,
when more than one applicant, as already discussed. According to
the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, as Rule 10 does not
specify the mode of selection of SC/ST community beneficiaries, the
procedure indicated in the second part of Exts.P1(a), P1(b), and
P1(c) circulars would have to be followed, and the same is valid in
view of Section 575 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
17. In the instant case, reading Section 215(2)(c), along with
Rules 6 to 10 of the Kerala Municipality Rules, 2000, it is

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 33 2026:KER:17049
discernible that as per Rule 6, transfer of Municipality's own
property is addressed. Similarly, as per Rule 7, grant of
Municipality's own property on lease has been dealt with. Similarly,
Rules 8 and 9 deal with transfer of property vested in the
Municipality and grant of licence on the sides of roads and streets.
Then, comes Rule 10, which, in fact, legally recognized the first part
of Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) circulars, whereby 10% reservation to
the SC/ST categories has given statutory recognition. After Rules 7
to 10 , Rule 11 is introduced, the same is in parity with Section
215(2)(c) of the Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 1999, which
provides that t he transfer of the property of the Municipality,
through sale, except renewal of licences, rehabilitation of licensees,
granting of lease, letting out on rent, shall be either in public
auction or by inviting tenders. If so, it is not safe to hold that after
the introduction of Kerala Municipality Rules, 2000 after
amendment of the Kerala Municipality Act, w.e.f. 24.03.1999, the
second part of Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) should regulate procedure
for allotment and the procedure shall be in accordance with Rule 11.

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 34 2026:KER:17049
Even though the Single Bench decision in W.P.(C).No.3835/2023
held the view that Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) are still in force, the
Division Bench set aside the said judgment on the said finding. The
judgment of the Division Bench is not so specific as to whether the
circulars are still in operation.
18. As per Rule 11, it has been specifically stated that the
transfer of the property of the Municipality, through sale, except
renewal of licences, rehabilitation of licensees, granting of lease,
letting out on rent, shall be either in public auction or by inviting
tenders. Therefore, at present, the procedures contemplated under
Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) circulars were superseded by the
statutory provisions, and the procedures prescribed under Rules 10
and 11 are required to be followed. It is decipherable from the
records that during the initial allotment of Room No.10, the
Municipality should have followed the procedure in Exts.P1(a),
P1(b) and P1(c), but the same was not followed and thus, the
selection of V.Vijayan as the beneficiary in violation of the
procedure by selecting the applicants by way of lot instead of calling

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 35 2026:KER:17049
competitive bids, is found to be absolutely illegal. Be it so, the
renewal of the licence periodically in continuation of the said
illegality is also illegal.
19. As already observed, in the instant case, allotting a room
specifically mentioned for SC/ST community in favour of V.Vijayan
by calling competitive tenders among the applicants of the said
community without following the procedure prescribed under
Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c), is illegal. Though there was a challenge
regarding the same allotment, according to the learned counsel for
the petitioners, it could be seen that the writ petition filed in the
year 2023 is the one this Court to take notice of.
20. An illegality is the base on which subsequent transactions
including change of licence and renewal thereof taken place; be it
so, such transactions are also to be reckoned as illegal. Anyhow, at
present, a procedure for selecting the beneficiary is in terms of Rule
11 of the Kerala Municipality Rules in terms of Section 215 of the
Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 1999 came into force w.e.f.
24.03.1999. Taking all these aspects into consideration, this Court

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 36 2026:KER:17049
is of the view that the continuation of possession of the property, as
th
reflected from the criminal court records, by the 6 accused on the
th
premise of possession of the same by the 7 accused is the result of
the illegal allotment made in favour of V.Vijayan. Since a
considerable period has elapsed after the initial allotment, I am of
the view that the writ petition can be disposed of, directing the
Municipality to consider the allotment of this room afresh in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 11 of the Kerala
Municipality Rules, after the expiry of the current period of renewal
th
of the licence in favour of the 7 accused, without fail.
21. Coming to the contention raised in the Crl.M.C. seeking
quashment of the case against accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 on the
th
ground of quashment of the case against the 6 accused, as per
Annexure N order, whether the prosecution challenged the said
order, could not be found from records. Here, the prosecution
th
records would show that the 6 accused has been in possession of
the room after effecting alterations and making the same as part of
their jewellery business after getting the same in custody from the

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 37 2026:KER:17049
th
7 accused, who got possession over the same starting from
V.Vijayan. V.Vijayan, in his statement, acknowledged that the
initial allotment of Room No.10 was not by following the procedures
prescribed under Exts.P1(a), P1(b), and P1(c), thereby confirming
the illegality in the allotment process, although he was the recipient
of the allotment. The prosecution records would reveal that at
th
present also the room has been in possession of the 6 accused.
Thus, the prosecution records would clearly show prima facie that
the accused persons obtained pecuniary advantage either for
themselves or for the present occupier (the jewellery owner). In
such a case, quashment of this case would necessarily fail.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to take a different view from the
view taken by the learned Single Judge, who passed Annexure N
order and I am of the view that, when there is an illegality in the
initial allotment in favour of V.Vijayan, any subsequent allotments
to other persons, even if they are members of the SC/ST community
and irrespective of the methodology adopted, could not justify or
validate the initial illegal allotment to V.Vijayan. When the initial

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 38 2026:KER:17049
allotment in respect of Room No.10 which is meant for SC/ST
th
community member, now in possession of the 6 accused, is illegal,
the prosecution allegations in C.C.No.02/2017 that the petitioners
herein committed offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners, who are accused
Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, are discernible from the prosecution records,
prima facie . Therefore, the quashment of the case against the
petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 1116/2025 is liable to fail.
In the result, Crl.M.C.No.1116/2025 is dismissed.
W.P.(C).No.38420/2024 stands disposed of as under:
st
The 1 respondent, Kottayam Municipality, is directed to re-
allot Room No.10 to a member of the SC/ST community in terms of
Rule 11 of the Kerala Municipality Rules, on the date of expiry of the
th
present agreement, under which the 7 accused was given
possession of the room, and which, according to the prosecution, is
th
now in the possession of the 6 accused, without granting any
th
renewal in favour of the 7 accused, thereafter.

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 39 2026:KER:17049
st
The 1 respondent, Kottayam Municipality is further directed
to restore Room No.10 to its original position and ensure possession
and use of the same by a member of SC/ST community and not by
any other and to allot the same by fresh procedure within a period
of one month from the date of expiry of the present agreement,
without fail.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 40 2026:KER:17049
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1116 OF 2025
PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF C.M.P.NO.514 OF 2013 FILED BY
THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND VIGILANCE AT KOTTAYAM ON
19-04-2013
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27-04-2013 IN
CRL.M.P.NO.514 OF 2013 OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27-04-2013 IN
CRL.M.P.NO.514 OF 2013 OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29-04-2013 IN
CRL.M.P.NO.514 OF 2013 OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
Annexure E CERTIFIED COPY OF CRIME V.C.1 OF 2013 OF
VACB, KOTTAYAM REGISTERED ON 13-05-2013
Annexure F CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT FILED BY
THE POLICE BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER
AND SPECIAL JUDGE COURT, KOTTAYAM
Annexure G TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF W8 - AJITHKUMAR
Annexure H TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF W13 -
C.N.SASIKUMAR
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF W15 - V.V.SUDHAN
Annexure J TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF W26 – P.V.THOMAS
Annexure k TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF W27 – TOMY
THOMAS
Annexure L TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.28 DATED 19-06-
2006 OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Annexure M TRUE COPY OF DEED OF LICENCE DATED 19-01-
2007 EXECUTED BETWEEN MUNICIPALITY AND 5TH
PETITIONER
Annexure N TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29-10-2024 IN
CRL.M.C.NO.2362 OF 2017 OF THIS HON’BLE
COURT
RESPONDENTS’
NIL
ANNEXURES

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 41 2026:KER:17049
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 38420 OF 2024
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.
15735/C5/90/LSG DATED 08/05/1990
Exhibit P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING
19217/C2/90/LSG DATED 10/05/1991
Exhibit P1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING
3480/D3/96/LSG DATED 12/08/1996
Exhibit P1(d) A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2016
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY
THE VACB, EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM ON
07/02/2017
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION TO
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY ON 19/
11/2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/02/2023
IN WPC NO.4339 OF 2023 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2023
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/04/2013
IN CR1.MP.NO.514/2013 BY THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT AND
MAHAZAR DATED 27/04/2013 BY THE DY.S.P,
VACB, KOTTAYAM UNIT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/04/2013
IN CRL.MP.NO.514/2013 BY THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 01/
12/2016 UNDER SECTION 164 OF THE CR.P.C
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF SKETCH PREPARED BY M.D.
YUSUF, MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, CHANGANACHERRY
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECEIVED FROM
THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT-R3(A). TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY

CRL.M.C.NO.1116 OF 2025
& WP(C) NO.38420 OF 2024 42 2026:KER:17049
THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH THE KOTTAYAM
MUNICIPALITY DATED 19.1.07
EXHIBIT-R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT BY THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY
DATED 1.4.25
EXHIBIT-R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 4.11.25
EXHIBIT-R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED
4.11.25
EXHIBIT-R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 7.10.25
EXHIBIT-R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED
7.10.25
EXHIBIT-R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY DATED 3.9.25
EXHIBIT-R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 3.9.25
EXHIBIT-R3(I). TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY DATED 6.8.25
EXHIBIT-R3(J). TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 8.6.25
EXHIBIT-R3(K). TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY DATED 4.7.25
EXHIBIT-R3(L) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 9.6.25
EXHIBIT-R3(M) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY DATED 9.6.25
EXHIBIT-R3(N). TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 7.5.25
EXHIBIT-R3(O) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY DATED 7.5.25