Vadakara Municipality vs Musthafa.V
2021 Latest Caselaw 16090 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
         TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 29415 OF 2014
PETITIONERS:

     1        VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY
              VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

     2        MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
              VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
              VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE

              BY ADV SRI.T.NAVEEN



RESPONDENT:

              MUSTHAFA.V
              NASEE GARDEN COTTAGE, VADAKARA 673101

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
              SRI.C.BHASKARAN
              SMT.M.SANTHY
              SRI.THOMAS MATHEW KOPPARA
              SRI.K.VINODKUMAR 70789


              SC: M SANTHY




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                         2
WP(C) NO. 29415 OF 2014




                                   JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging

Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal for Local Self

Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal

No.717/2013.

2. The brief facts are that, the respondent is

the licencee in occupation of two shop rooms

belonging to the Vadakara Municipality. It is

submitted that the licence fee in respect of those

shop rooms was earlier fixed on 09.06.2009 for a

period of three years, going by the mandate of

Section 458 of the kerala Municipality Act, 1994.

Through Ext.P1 notice dated 24.06.2013, the

respondent was called upon to pay licence fee by

enhancing it by 50% on the basis of a decision taken

by the council of the Municipality on 30.05.2013. The

respondent challenged this demand before the Tribunal

WP(C) NO. 29415 OF 2014

for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal

after hearing the Municipality and examining the

files found that, the decision to enhance the licence

fee by 50% had been reconsidered and the enhancement

was reduced to 40% over and above the existing

licence fee. The Tribunal did not interfere with the

said decision of the Municipality. However, the

Tribunal took the view that the demand for licence

fee has to be restricted by limiting the demand from

the date of the decision taken by the council, to

enhance the fee, which is 30.05.2013.

3. Sri. T. Naveen, the learned Standing Council

appearing for the Vadakara Municipality would contend

that, Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal cannot be

sustained as it goes against the mandate of Section

458 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which

imposed a duty on the Municipality to fix the licence

fee only for a period of three years at a stretch. He

would submit that the purpose and intent of having

WP(C) NO. 29415 OF 2014

such provision is to ensure that there is periodic

revision of licence fee, so that public revenue is

protected.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondent would contend that, the enhancement of

licence fee even by 40% results in a huge financial

burden and the Tribunal was right in restricting the

right of the Municipality to demand enhanced licence

fee only from the date on which a decision was taken

to so enhance it. She would also submit that the

benefit of reduction of the licence fee from 50% to

40% has also not been extended to the respondent.

She further submits that the entire amount due from

2013 has been remitted by the respondent with the

Municipality.

5. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel for

the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent, I am inclined to allow the writ

petition. Going by the provisions of Section 458 of

WP(C) NO. 29415 OF 2014

the Municipalities Act, the Municipality was

statutorily bound to revise the licence fee after the

expiry of three years from the date on which it was

earlier fixed. It is not disputed before me that the

licence fee was earlier fixed on 09.06.2009 and the

period of three years would therefore expire on

08.06.2012. Considering the mandate of Section 458 of

the Municipalities Act, it is only appropriate that

the decision to enhance licence fee becomes

applicable from the date on which the three year

period expired from 09.06.2009. Otherwise the mandate

of the statutory provision would be meaningless.

Accordingly, Ext.P2 order is quashed. I hold that the

respondent is liable to pay enhanced licence fee

from 10.06.2012.

Taking note of the finding in Ext.P2 that the

enhancement of the licence fee had been reduced from

50% to 40%, I direct that the benefit of such

decision will be extended to the respondent also. Any

WP(C) NO. 29415 OF 2014

amount paid by the respondent towards the licence fee

shall be adjusted against the amount found to due

from the respondent. It is also directed that in the

facts and circumstances of the case, no interest

shall be levied by the Municipality on the licence

fee to be paid by the petitioner for the period from

10.06.2012 to April, 2013. The petitioner

Municipality shall quantify the amount due from the

petitioner from the period from 10.06.2012 to April,

2013 and the respondent shall pay that amount within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of

a certified copy of this judgment, failing which it

will be open the petitioner Municipality to recover

the same from the respondent, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE hmh

WP(C) NO. 29415 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29415/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-06-2013 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-05-2014 IN APPEAL NO 717/2013 OF THE TRIBUNAL

PETITIONER EXHIBITS NIL