Kerala High Court
Sunil V.R vs Corporation Of Calicut on 7 July, 2025
2025:KER:49792
W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7422 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
SUNIL V.R
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.SRI.T.KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 3/113B,
VANDIPETTA, NADAKKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 011.
BY ADV SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 CORPORATION OF CALICUT
CORPORATION OFFICE, P.B.NO.115, CALICUT - 673
032, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT - 673 020.
3 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY),
REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE - 673 020.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49792
W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014
2
S.MANU, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Exts.P6 and P8 demand notices were issued by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner. In Ext.P6 notice reference was made to the judgment in O.S.No.830/97 (later re-numbered as O.S.No.132/2000). In the opening paragraph of Ext.P6 it was stated that late Mr.John Iype was the licesee of shop room No.4 in old block, I.G. Road, and civil court had decreed that dues pertaining to the said room shall be recovered from the legal heirs of Mr.John Iype and his partners. Petitioner was shown as a partner in Ext.P6. Further it was stated that the total amount due was equally divided and the legal heirs as well as the partners should pay Rs.2,68,045/- each. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply to P6. On 25.6.2013, Ext.P8 notice was issued stating that the reply was not satisfactory and hence the amount as demanded should be 2025:KER:49792 W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014 3 remitted, failing which revenue recovery proceedings would be initiated. Thereafter, Ext.P10 demand notice was issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act by the 3 rd respondent on the basis of requisition from the Secretary, Kozhikode Corporation.
2. Petitioner approached this Court after receiving Ext.P10 and this Court stayed all further proceedings. Corporation has filed counter affidavit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reference in Ext.P6 to the judgment in the civil suit shows that the Corporation has proceeded against the petitioner without proper application of mind. He made reference to the copy of the judgment dated 20th October 2001 of the Subordinate Judges' Court, Kozhikode in OS 132 of 2000. It shows that the suit was for injunction and it was dismissed as the counsel for the plaintiff reported 'no instructions'. The learned counsel made reference to Ext.P9 reply obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, which shows that the licensee of 2025:KER:49792 W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014 4 the room was late Mr.John Iype from 3.4.1989 to 20.7.2012. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was never a licensee of the room and an application was submitted in 1997 for transfer of the license in his favour. However, a partner of the petitioner filed suit for injunction to restrain the transfer. In 2010, an application was submitted by the petitioner again for issuing license in his name. Corporation intimated that the original licensee who was no more had not remitted the arrears of license fee and only if the arrears are cleared the application can be considered. The petitioner was intimated that he should pay Rs.5,97,935/- towards the arrears, if the application was to be considered. Petitioner expressed his inability to do so by a letter dated 9.3.2011. Impugned proceedings were initiated against the petitioner thereafter. The learned counsel contended that there was no legally binding arrangement between the Corporation and the petitioner at any point of time, with respect to the room and hence the demand made by the Corporation was totally baseless and illegal. He further contended that the 2025:KER:49792 W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014 5 alleged liability was time barred and therefore the revenue recovery proceedings were illegal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the petitioner was a partner of Noble Enterprises and had 45% of its shares. Late Mr.John Iype was also a partner. Fact that the petitioner and the other partners had applied for transfer of the room in the name of the petitioner shows that the room was in use of the partnership firm. When the Corporation intimated the petitioner that the license of the room can be transferred to him if he was willing to clear the arrears, the petitioner conveyed his inability to make the payments. Thereafter, the room was allotted to another person through tender. The learned Standing Counsel asserted that there was no illegality in the proceedings initiated by the Corporation for recovery of the dues as by his own showing ,petitioner as well as late Mr.John Iype were partners of the firm which occupied Room No.4. He hence submitted that the writ petition is without any merits.
2025:KER:49792 W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014 6
5. Proceedings for recovering the amounts from the petitioner was initiated by the Corporation by misreading the judgment in O.S.No.132/2000 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. Perusal of the said judgment shows that the suit was dismissed as the counsel for the petitioner reported 'no instructions'. No finding was rendered by the court on merits. It is surprising that the Corporation made reference to such a judgment as justification to proceed against the petitioner.
6. It is also clear that the room in dispute was allotted to late Mr.John Iype. Case of the Corporation is that the licensee as well as the petitioner were partners of a partnership firm and the room was utilized by the said firm. However, there is no material to show that the room was occupied by the partnership firm. As noted above, license was issued in the name of an individual. Hence, Corporation should have proceeded against the said individual or his legal heirs for recovery of the dues. The Corporation, however without any materials in support of such a decision, apportioned the dues 2025:KER:49792 W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014 7 into three and decided to recover the same from the legal heirs of the original licensee, the petitioner and another person. The said decision of the Corporation cannot be approved. There was no legally binding arrangement/agreement between the Corporation and the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the demand raised against the petitioner cannot be sustained. The contention regarding limitation need not be considered as I have found that the demand was not sustainable.
In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P6, P8 and P10 are quashed.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:49792 W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7422/2014 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/10/2001 IN OS 132 OF 2000 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 20/10/2001 IN OS 132/2000 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICTION DATED 25/02/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.A29/19830/95 DATED 27/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09/03/2011 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO.A29/19830/95 DATED 11/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/03/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.A29/9830/95 DATED 25/06/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NO.A29/150208/13 DATED 23/12/2013 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE BEARING NO.2013/40098/11 DATED 13/9/2013.