WP(C)/22367/2021 of SREE SABARIMALA DHARMA SASTHA ALANGAD YOGAM, Vs TRAVANCORE DEVASOM BOARD, on 31 December 2021

JUDGMENT

Anil K.Narendran, J.

The 1[st] petitioner, namely, Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam (for brevity 'Alangad Yogam'), represented by itsSecretary and the 2[nd] petitioner, who is the President of the 1[st]petitioner-Alangad Yogam, have filed this writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ ofmandamus commanding the 1[st]respondent-TravancoreDevaswom Board to permit them to use the original Golika andKodi, which are in the possession of the 1[st] petitioner, in theceremonies in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal. Thepetitioners have also sought for an order directing the 1[st]respondent-Board to permit the office bearers of the 1[st]petitioner-Yogam to stand in the front row and participate in allceremonies associated with Pettathullal.

2. The petitioners are seeking the aforesaid reliefs mainlyrelying on Ext.P13 letter dated 04.01.2015 of the Thanthri ofSabarimala Temple, which is one addressed to the 3[rd]respondent-Devaswom Commissioner, Ext.P14 letter dated

31.01.2016 of the Thanthri addressed to the President of the 1[st]petitioner-Yogam and also Ext.P15 letter dated 04.01.2016 of theValiya Thampuran of Alangad Swaroopam addressed to the 3[rd]respondent- Devaswom Commissioner. In Ext.P13 letter theThanthri has stated that the ancient Golika and Kodi presentedby Pandhalam Raja to Alangad Sangham should be used duringErumeli Pettathullal and the usage of new Golika and Kodi duringPettathullal is against the wishes of Lord Ayyappa. In Ext.P14letter the Thanthri has insisted the usage of ancient Golika andKodi during Erumeli Pettathullal. In Ext.P15 letter, the ValiyaThampuram of Alangad Swaroopam requested the 3[rd]respondent-Devaswom Commissioner to take necessary steps toensure that the ancient Golika and Kodi presented by PandhalamRaja are being used in Erumeli Pettathullal and also to ensure thepresence of Kambilly Velichapad in Pettathullal. In the writpetition it is averred that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa fromAlangad area are given special rights and privileges from timeimmemorial during Erumeli Pettathullal, till Sannidhanam.Kambilly Velichapad is the only person permitted to enter

Sannidhanam without irumudi kettu. The Pandhalam Raja hadpresented Golika to Kambilly Velichapad, which is made of Silver,for worshipping Lord Ayyappa. A Kodi, which is blue in colour,believed to be used for leading the warriors in the war againstUdayanan at Karimala, was also presented to Kambilly Velichapadby the Pandhalam Raja.

3. On 22.02.2021 when this writ petition came up foradmission, the learned Standing Counsel for TravancoreDevaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 4[th]respondent, namely, Sabarimala SwamiBhakthajanasangham (for brevity 'Bhakthajanasangham'),represented by its Periyon.

4. The 4[th] respondent-Bhakthajanasangham has filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writpetition. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that, as held bythe Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment dated30.10.2013 Erumeli Pettathullal will have to be led by the 4[th]respondent-Bhakthajanasangham in the leadership of Periyon from Ambadath family. The Bhakthajanasangham has alreadymade arrangements for the conduct of Erumeli Pettathullal, whichwill commence on 02.01.2022 by the ceremony calledPettapurappad at Aluva Mahadeva Temple. Golika is the idol ofLord Ayyappa. There cannot be two idols in the Pettathullal,which would negate the centuries old practice of Pettathullal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, thelearned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board forrespondents 1 and 3 and also the learned Senior Counsel for the4[th] respondent.

6. Mainly relying on Exts.P13 and P14 letters of theThanthri of Sabarimala Temple and Ext.P15 letter of ValiyaThampuran of Alangad Swaroopam, the petitioners wouldcontend that the ancient Golika and Kodi presented to AlangadYogam by the Pandhalam Raja has to be used in the ceremoniesin connection with Erumeli Pettathullal and Kambilly Velichapadand other office bearers of the 1[st] petitioner-Yogam should bepermitted to stand in the front row and participate in everyceremony associated with Pettathullal. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since W.P(C)No.815 of 2018

filed by the 4[th] respondent-Bhakthajanasangham on 08.01.2018was disposed of on 09.01.2018 by Ext.P12 judgment, the Officebearers of the 1[st] petitioner-Yogam, who were arrayed asrespondents 5 to 8 therein, could not bring to the notice of thisCourt their legal and factual contentions by filing counteraffidavit, producing therewith the relevant documents in supportof their claim.

7. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the 4[[th]]respondent-Bhakthajanasangham, mainly relying on Ext.P9judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in R.S.A.Nos.532and 645 of 2012 and W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 and also Ext.P12judgment dated 09.01.2018 in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018 wouldcontend that Erumeli Pettathullal will have to be led by Periyonfrom Ambadath family and in view of the findings in thosejudgments the petitioners cannot contend that they should bepermitted to use the Golika and Kodi in their possession and leadErumeli Pettathullal. The learned Senior Counsel would furthercontend that in paragraph 12 of Ext.P12 judgment the Division Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the 4[[th]]

Bench has taken note of the recommendations made by the Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and the Travancore DevaswomBoard to include the Golika belonging to Chembola Kalari inErumeli Pettathullal.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for TravancoreDevaswom Board would submit that, as evidenced by Ext.P11minutes dated 04.01.2018 of the meeting convened by thePresident of the Board to arrive at consensus in the disputebetween the 1[st] petitioner and the 4[th] respondent regarding theceremonies in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal for the year2018, it was decided that both factions will be permitted to usetheir own Golika and Kodi in Erumeli Pettathullal. Conditions tothat effect were incorporated in clauses 3, 4 and 5 of Ext.P11minutes, which were interfered with by this Court in Ext.P12judgment dated 09.01.2018 in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018. As such,the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in thiswrit petition. The learned Standing Counsel would contend thatthe question as to whether the Golika and Kodi in the possessionof the 1[st] petitioner-Yogam, which belongs to Chembola Kalari, are the original Golika and Kodi, is a disputed question of fact,which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Having considered the pleadings and materials onrecord and also the submissions made by the learned counsel onboth sides, we find that two residents of Alangad Desom, whoare he devotees of Lord Ayyappa, filed C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000before this Court seeking a declaration that the residents ofAlangad Grama Panchyath are the real Alangad Yogam, who areentitled to conduct and perform all religious rites in ErumeliPettathullal. In the said C.M.P., the Secretary of TravancoreDevaswom Board filed a statement, wherein it was stated that,after the split in Alangad Yogam, two sets of Golika andKodikoora are being used during Erumeli Pettathullal and theallegation by the rival faction is that the other faction has madenew Golika and Kodikoora. The Division Bench of this Courtdisposed of C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000, by Ext.P7 order dated13.12.2000. the Division Bench found that the dispute betweenthe two factions is a civil dispute and it may not be feasible to decide that dispute in a proceedings under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. Since the dispute can be resolved only by acivil court, the Division Bench directed either parties to file a suiton the question involved. The Division Bench further held thatthe question as to whether who is entitled to conduct ErumeliPettathullal shall be decided by a competent court of law. Tillthen, during the festivals, it shall be led by the members of the4[th]respondent-Bhakthajanasangham. In Ext.P7 order, theDivision Bench had made it clear that, even though AlangadYogam is allowed to conduct religious rites during the festival, allthe devotees of Alangad can take part in the activities of theBhakthajajasangham which may not exert pressure for collectingany amount from the devotees. It was also made clear that, eventhough the Bhakthajanasangham is allowed to conduct thefestival, that will not give them any right.

10. Seeking review of Ext.P7 order, the petitioners inC.M.P.No.3020 of 2000 filed R.P.No.594 of 2000, which ended indismissal by Ext.P8 order dated 05.01.2001, on a finding thatthere is no error of law in the order sought to be reviewed.

Seeking review of Ext.P7 order, the petitioners in

However, the Division Bench in Ext.P8 order made it clear that all the members of the Bhakthajajasangham as well as AlangadYogam should be allowed to take part in Erumeli Pettathullal andthe parties should not given any room for any altercation ordispute, etc. If any faction of the members want Pettathullal tobe performed differently they need not join the main team. TheTravancore Devaswom Board may allow them to have Pettathullalseparately. As per Ext.P8 order, for the year 2001, the leadershipshould be given to the Bhakthajanasangham.

11. The petitioners in C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000 filedO.S.No.255 of 2001 before the Additional Sub Court, NorthParavur, seeking a declaration of their right to conduct ErumeliPettathullal, after conducting Pankapooja at Perumbavoor andRamapuram Temple and also to accompany ThiruvabharanaYathra from Pandhalam Palace to Sannidhanam. They have alsosought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining themembers of the Bhakthajanasangham from interfering with theexercise of their rights. The above suit was tried along withO.S.No.318 of 2003 filed by the Bhakthajanasangham and

O.S.No.319 of 2003 filed by Alangad Yogam and others. By acommon judgment and decree dated 07.09.2004 the AdditionalSub Court dismissed O.S.Nos.255 of 2001 and 319 of 2003.O.S.No.318 of 2003 was allowed in part and the defendantstherein and their men are restrained by way of permanentprohibitory injunction from making collection in the name ofBhakthajanasangham to conduct Erumeli Pettathullal and otherrituals and observances at Pampa and Sannidhanam duringMakaravilakku festival in the name of the Alangad Yogam.

12. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.319 of 2003 wasunder challenge in A.S.No.218 of 2004 and that in O.S.No.318 of2003 was under challenge in A.S.No.219 of 2004. The appellantsin A.S.No.218 of 2004 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.319 of 2003and the appellants in A.S.No.219 of 2004 are the defendants inO.S.No.318 of 2003. By a common judgment dated 26.7.2011 ofthe Additional District Court, North Paravur, A.S.No.219 of 2004was allowed, by setting aside the judgment and decree inO.S.No.318 of 2003 and that suit was dismissed. A.S.No.218 of2004 was dismissed, by confirming the judgment and decree in

O.S.No.319 of 2003.

13. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court inA.S.No.218 of 2004 were under challenge in R.S.A.No.532 of2012 filed before this Court by the defendants in O.S.No.319 of2003. The judgment and decree in A.S.No.219 of 2004 wereunder challenge in R.S.A.No.645 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs inO.S.No.318 of 2003. Those Second Appeals were heard alongwith W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 filed by the Bhakthajanasanghamchallenging the order dated 10.01.2013 of the Secretary of theTravancore Devaswom Board, whereby it was informed that onlythe claim of Alangad Yogam to perform Pettathullal is recognisedby the Board.

14. In Ext.P9 judgment dated 13.10.2013, the DivisionBench found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.318 of 2003 have notfiled the suit in a representative capacity and the publicationunder Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also notbeen made, after getting permission. In O.S.No.319 of 2003 anapplication under Order I Rule 8 of the Code was filed, which wasallowed by the trial court. The Division Bench found that the publication effected in O.S.No.319 of 2003 under order I Rule 8of the Code cannot hold good as the plaintiffs have limited thearea of Alangad Yogam to certain places alone. Therefore, boththe suits are not at all comprehensive to consider the variousaspects concerning the rights of the devotees in Alangad Yogam.Therefore, the Division Bench, by Ext.P9 judgment dated30.10.2013, dismissed O.S.Nos.318 of 2003 and 319 of 2003,leaving open all the issues for consideration in appropriate suits,which may have to be filed comprehensively enough by theparties concerned or others. The Division Bench made it clearthat the findings by the lower appellate court will not operate asres judicata if any fresh suit is filed in the matter. However, thefinding regarding the places included in the erstwhile AlangadRajyam was confirmed by the Division Bench, in the light of thedetails available from the historical aspects.

15. Insofar as the challenge made in W.P.(C)No.10870 of2013, against the order dated 10.01.2013 of the TravancoreDevaswom Board is concerned, the Division Bench, after takingnote of Exts.P7 and P8 orders and also the subsequent orders/judgments, issued various directions in paragraph 38 of Ext.P9 judgment, which read thus:

"38. After considering various aspects as noted above, wepass the following order:

i) Pettathullal at Erumeli will be led by thepetitioner, viz. Sabarimala Swami BhaktajanaSanghom through the Periyon from Ambadathfamily;

ii) All the devotees who are desirous to joinPettathullal and to have Darsan at Sabarimala fromthe entire Alangad desom as found by usin para.28above, will be allowed to join the petitioner. Theywill be allowed to take part in all the religiousfunctions including the visit to the Templesconcerned and other poojas and religious functionsat Sabarimala and other places like Pamba, etc. Allthe parties herein and other organisations will co-operate with the same;

iii) The Travancore Devaswom Board is directed toissue appropriate directions in the matter throughthe officers concerned, in terms of the spirit of thisorder; to enable the smooth conduct of Pettathullalby Alangad Yogam;

iv) We direct the Board and the DevaswomCommissioner to issue appropriate directions to thelocal officers at Erumeli, Pamba and Sabarimala for the smooth compliance of the directions as above.

It was suggested by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri S.Sreekumar that this Court can direct the issuance of badges to the devotees. We need only direct thatopportunity will not be denied to any willing devotees whoare from the areas mentioned above and in case thereoccurs any dispute regarding the identity of anybody, theDevaswom Officer concerned at Erumeli will resolve thedispute by referring to the documents, if any, madeavailable by such devotees. The Board will continue toallow all the privileges hitherto enjoyed by the AlangadYogam during Pettathullal as well as the privileges atPampa and Sabarimala and other places."

16. In Ext.P9 judgment, the Division Bench made it clear that, opportunity will not be denied to any willing devotees whoare from the areas mentioned above and in case there occursany dispute regarding the identity of any devotees, theconcerned Devaswom Officer at Erumeli will resolve the disputeby referring to the documents, if any, made available by suchdevotees. The Travancore Devaswom Board will continue to allowall the privileges hitherto enjoyed by Alangad Yogam duringPettathullal as well as the privileges at Pampa and Sabarimalaand other places. In Ext.P9 judgment it was made clear that thedirection contained therein will have application for the year 2013and in future till a proper scheme is framed by the civil court.

Accordingly, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 byquashing the impugned order dated 10.01.2013.

17. Seeking review of Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013, R.P.No.1023 of 2013 was filed by AlangadYogam, which was disposed of by an order dated 03.01.2014,clarifying that the order passed in paragraph 38 of Ext.P9judgment will mean that “Periyon from Ambadath Family will leadPettathullal”.

Seeking review of Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.

18. After the dismissal of O.S.Nos.318 of 2003 and 319 of2003 by Ext.P9 judgment in R.S.A.Nos.532 of 2012 and 645 of2012, certain persons representing Alangad Yogam filedI.A.No.670 of 2014 in O.P.No.121 of 2014 under Section 92 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to institute a suit forsettling a scheme for the conduct of Erumeli Pettathullal byAlangad Yogam during Makaravilakku festival at Sabarimala. Thatapplication ended in dismissal by Ext.P10 order dated30.11.2016, on the ground that none of the ingredientsnecessary to bring the subject matter for a suit under Section 92of the Code is made out.

19. As evidenced by Ext.P11 minutes dated 04.01.2018 of the meeting convened by the President of the TravancoreDevaswom Board to arrive at consensus in the dispute betweenthe 1[st] petitioner and the 4[th] respondent regarding theceremonies in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal for the year2018, it was decided that both factions will be permitted to usetheir own Golika and Kodi in Erumeli Pettathullal. Conditions tothat effect were incorporated as clauses 3, 4 and 5 in Ext.P11minutes. The aforesaid conditions in Ex.P11 minutes were underchallengeinW.P.(C)No.815of2018filedbyBhakthajanasangham. That writ petition was disposed of byExt.P12 judgment dated 09.01.2018, wherein the Division Benchheld that clauses 3, 4 and 5 of Ext.P11 minutes are impermissibleand cannot be allowed to operate. As per clause 3 of Ext.P11minutes, permission has been granted to allow the members ofChembola Kalari to carry their own Golika and Kodi, in addition tothe ritualistic one allowed to be carried by the Periyon. TheDivision Bench found that it cannot give support to thispermission granted in Ext.P11, because by doing so, it will only lead to more factionalism and disputes between the parties.

Further the materials on record do not support the case ofAlangad Yogam that two sets of Golikas and kodis areritualistically permitted to accompany Pettathullal. In paragraph17 of Ext.P12 judgment, the Division Bench issued variousdirections, which read thus:

"17. In the compendium of our view as above, we makethe following directions to the competent Authorities of theTravancore Devaswom Board:

(a) Sri.A.K.Vijayakumar of Ambadath Tharavad,who is the elected Periyon, will lead the Alangad-Erumeli Pettathullal this year.

(b) Only the Golaka and flag of the Ambadathfamily will be allowed to be carried during theAlangad Pettathullal Procession and event and noother.

(c) Sri.Sankaran Venugopal Kambilly, KambillilHouse, Muppathadom, Aluva will be allowed tocarry the Golaka of the Ambadath family and toaccompany the Periyon.

(d) The Administrative Officer, Erumeli will issuepasses to every person who approaches him with adesire to take part in the Alangad Pettathullal, afterverification of the credentials of such persons andafter ensuring that each such person is entitled tobe part of the event in terms of paragraph 28 of Exhibit P1 judgment.

(e) No person who has not been issued with a pass by the Administrative Officer, Erumeli asaforedirected will be allowed to take part in theAlangad Pettathullal."

In paragraph 18 of Ext.P12 judgment, the Division Bench made it clear that the aforesaid directions will govern the field for theyear 2018 and similar directions for the next year can beconsidered at the appropriate time, depending upon the mannerin which the event is held in the year 2018.

20. The findings in Ext.P12 judgment of the Division Bench

referred to hereinbefore are against the use of two sets ofGolikas and Kodis during Erumeli Pettathullal. In Ext.P12judgment the Division Bench expressly dissuaded themselvesfrom granting any approval for permitting two different Golikasduring Erumeli Pettathullal, since it will lead to more acrimonybetween the members of the alleged groups, which would causethe sanctity of the rituals itself to be severely compromised.

21. During the course of arguments, the submission madeby the learned counsel for the petitioners is that sinceW.P(C)No.815 of 2018 filed by the 4[th] respondent on 08.01.2018

was disposed of on 09.01.2018 by Ext.P12 judgment, the officebearers of the Alangad Yogam, who were arrayed as respondents5 to 8 therein, could not bring to the notice of this Court theirlegal and factual contentions by filing counter affidavit, producingtherewith the relevant documents like Exts.P13 and P14 letters ofthe Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and Ext.P15 letter of theValiya Thampuram of Alangad Swaroopam, as per which theancient Golika and Kodi presented to Alangad Yogam by thePandhalam Raja has to be used in the ceremonies in connectionwith Erumeli Pattathullal, which should be led by KambillyVelichapad.

22. The question as to whether the Golika and Kodi whichare in the possession of Alangad Yogam have to be used inErumeli Pettathullal, in exclusion of that in the possession ofBhakthajanasangham is a dispute, which has to be decided bythe competent civil court. It cannot be adjudicated in writproceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Inview of the observations referred to hereinbefore made by theDivision Bench in Ext.P12 judgment in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in thiswrit petition. If the petitioners have a case that there is errorapparent on the face of Ext.P12 judgment, they could haveinvoked the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of theCode of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, if they have a casethat the reasoning or observations of the Division Bench inExt.P12 judgment is erroneous, they could have challenged thatjudgment by filing a Special Leave Petition before the ApexCourt.

In view of the aforesaid findings in Ext.P12 judgment, we hold that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought forin this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed;however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners toestablish their claim in relation to the aforesaid Golika and Kodiby approaching the competent civil court. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JUDGE.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22367/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ARTICLE PUBLISHED INMATHRUBHOOMI DATED 05/09/2016.

Exhibit P2PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE INTERIORPORTION OF CHEMBOLAKALARI SHOWING THESYMBOL OF ALANGAD KING.PORTION OF CHEMBOLAKALARI SHOWING THESYMBOL OF ALANGAD KING.

Exhibit P3PHOTOCOPY OF ARTICLE PUBLISHED INDESHABHIMANI SABARIMALA SPECIAL IN THEYEAR 2008.DESHABHIMANI SABARIMALA SPECIAL IN THEYEAR 2008.

Exhibit P4PHOTOGRAPH OF ANCIENT AYYAPA GOLAKA INPOSSESSION OF PETITIONER ASSOCIATION. POSSESSION OF PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.

Exhibit P5PHOTOGRAPH OF ANCIENT KODI INPOSSESSION OF PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.POSSESSION OF PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.Exhibit P6PHOTOGRAPH OF ANCIENT KODI GOLAKA KEPTIN AMMANATH TEMPLE.IN AMMANATH TEMPLE.

Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED IN CMP3020/2000 DATED 13/12/2000 OF HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF KERALA.3020/2000 DATED 13/12/2000 OF HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF KERALA.

Exhibit P8COPY OF ORDER IN RP 594/2000 IN CMP3020/2000 DATED 05/01/2001.3020/2000 DATED 05/01/2001.

Exhibit P9COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.10870/2013DATED 30/10/2013.DATED 30/10/2013.

Exhibit P10A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/11/2016IN IA 670/2014 IN OP 121/2014 OFADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTHPARAVUR.IN IA 670/2014 IN OP 121/2014 OFADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTHPARAVUR.

Exhibit P11A TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED ON04/01/2018.04/01/2018.

Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.815/2018 DATED 19/01/2018.815/2018 DATED 19/01/2018.

Exhibit P13A TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED KANDARARUMOHANARU DATED 04/01/2015.MOHANARU DATED 04/01/2015.

Exhibit P14A TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED KANDARARURAJEEVARU DATED 31/01/2016.RAJEEVARU DATED 31/01/2016.Exhibit P15A TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED UTHRAMTHIRUNAL BHASKARA VARMA RAJA DATED04/01/2016.THIRUNAL BHASKARA VARMA RAJA DATED04/01/2016.

Exhibit P16A TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BYADMINISTRATIVEOFFICER,ERUMELIDEVASWOM DATED 22/09/2000.ADMINISTRATIVEOFFICER,ERUMELIDEVASWOM DATED 22/09/2000.Exhibit P17A TRUE COPY OF PROGRAM NOTICEPUBLISHED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.PUBLISHED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.Exhibit P18TRUEPHOTOCOPYOFMATHRUBHUMISABARIMALASUPPLEMENTDATED16.11.2021.SABARIMALASUPPLEMENTDATED16.11.2021.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

Exhibit. R4(a)TRUE COPY OF CAUSE TITLE IN THEJUDGMENT IN R.S.A.NO.532 OF 2012 OFTHIS HON'BLE COURTJUDGMENT IN R.S.A.NO.532 OF 2012 OFTHIS HON'BLE COURT

Exhibit. R4(b)TRUE COPY OF CAUSE TITLE IN THEJUDGMENT IN R.S.A.NO.645 IF 2012 OFTHIS HON'BLE COURTJUDGMENT IN R.S.A.NO.645 IF 2012 OFTHIS HON'BLE COURT

Exhibit. R4(c)TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.06.2014 INS.L.P(C).OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURTS.L.P(C).OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURTExhibit. R4(d)TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED19.12.2017 IN W.P(C).NOS.36152 & 38762OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. 19.12.2017 IN W.P(C).NOS.36152 & 38762OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit. R4(e)TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETINGHELD ON 04.01.2018 SIGNED BY ASSISTANTSECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.HELD ON 04.01.2018 SIGNED BY ASSISTANTSECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit. R4(f)TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED FOR THEERUMELI PETTAH IN THE YEAR 2012ERUMELI PETTAH IN THE YEAR 2012