WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011
PETITIONER/S:
P.P.SHEREEF, THAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THAZHATHANGADI, KOTTAYAM-686 005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN
SRI.S.MOHANDAS
SRI.GNR.UNNITHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,, KOTTAYAM
MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR R.R.
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SRI.SIBY MATHEW
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.14936 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : "(i) issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction to the respondents calling for the records leading to Exts.P2, P3 demand notices and Ext.P5 RR notice and to quash the same.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the 1 st respondent to refund the licence fee of Rs.16,428/- with interest from 2000 onwards.
(iii) Such other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deem fit and necessary
(iv) Costs of this proceedings."
2. The petitioner entered into an agreement of licence with the 1st respondent Municipality for conducting petty business in a small Bunk in the year 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the agreement was entered into on the basis of a promise by the 1st respondent that the bunk which is WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011 3 dilapidated and made using tin sheets would be repaired and make available in a usable condition. Advance licence fee of Rs.8214/- and security amount for the same amount of Rs.8214/- was paid to the 1st respondent. During the monsoon period of 2001, the bunk was destroyed completely and it is the case of the petitioner that the Municipality removed the same. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation for either reconstructing the same or refunding the paid amounts which was not heeded by the 1st respondent, is the contention of the petitioner. Subsequently, after a long period of nearly 10 years, the petitioner received demand notice of Exts.P2 and P3 and also revenue recovery proceedings as evident by Ext.P5. It is the case of the petitioner that it is highly improper on the part of the Municipality to demand such huge amount after lapse of a decade. If the demand of the Municipality is genuine, the Municipality ought to have demand the dues at the earliest. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not even taken D&O licence. Hence, this writ petition is filed. WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011 4
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions. The counsel also relied the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Bhatinda Dist. Co-operative Milk P.Union Ltd. [2007 (4) KLT SN 52] and submitted that even though if there is any amount due that is barred by limitation. The counsel submitted that recovery proceedings was initiated after about a decade.
5. This Court perused Ext.P1 representation submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P1 is dated 4.8.2001. Thereafter, Ext.P2 and P3 notices were issued in the year 2010. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation to Exts.P2 and P3. Thereafter, the revenue recovery proceedings was initiated. No orders are passed in Ext.P4.
6. When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court stayed all further proceedings consequent to Exts.P2, P3 and P5 and the interim order is in force even now. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I think there can be WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011 5 a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 within a time frame, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The 1st respondent will consider the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Bhatinda Dist.'s case (supra) also. Till final orders are closed, the interim order already passed can be allowed to continue.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
1) There will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P4 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2) Till final orders are passed, all further proceedings consequent to Exts.P2, P3 and P5 are deferred.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.8.01 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 5.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.9.10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.10.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DN-1798 DATED 15.3.11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 5.12.03 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO BIJU MATHEW EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.9.10 TO ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO ELIKKUTTY JOSEPH.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL