IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 24379 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SUJITH MOHAN,
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.MOHANAN P.K., THUNDIYIL HOUSE, POOVARANY
VILLAGE, EADAMATTOM POST, PALA 686 578.
BY ADVS.
JAI GEORGE
DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 PALA MUNICIPALITY,
MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, PALA 686 575, REP.BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY,
PALA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX,
PALA 686 575.
SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 24379 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022 The petitioner, who remitted `8,32,537/- as security deposit to the 1st respondent-Municipality for allotment of a shop room, is before this Court seeking to direct the 1 st respondent to return the deposit collected form the petitioner within a time frame.
2. The petitioner states that he was allotted a shop room and he remitted `8,32,537/- as security deposit to the 1 st respondent. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner was not able to start the business in the shop room and therefore, the petitioner surrendered the shop room on 01.01.2021 by handing over the key and entire dues. The 1st respondent accepted the key and the dues. But, the security deposit was not returned in spite of Ext.P2 representation. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court.
3. When the writ petition came for admission on 01.12.2021, this Court passed an interim order directing the Municipality to pay at least 30% of the amount to the petitioner within one month from that day.
WP(C) NO. 24379 OF 2021 3
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Municipality submitted that in deference to the interim order passed by this Court, an amount of `3,00,000/- (40% of the outstanding amount) has been paid to the petitioner. The 1 st respondent has to return such security deposits to a large number of other persons also. Due to financial crisis, the 1 st respondent is not in a position to refund the balance security deposit immediately.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. The fact that the petitioner had deposited `8,32,537/- as security deposit is admitted. The statement of the petitioner that he surrendered the room on 01.01.2021 to the 1st respondent- Municipality is not disputed. As the petitioner has surrendered the shop room, the 1st respondent is bound to release the entire security deposit due to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the financial constrains of the 1st respondent cannot be a reason not to refund a deposit collected from the petitioner by way of security.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to refund the balance WP(C) NO. 24379 OF 2021 4 amount due to the petitioner towards security deposit within a period of six months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE DSV/03.06.2022 WP(C) NO. 24379 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24379/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER R3-8108/15(VOL.II) G 18 DATED 3.2.2019 DEMANDING THE PAYMENT RS.5,62,437/- ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 28.10.2021.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL