Hassan Sanoj vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 8314 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

                       W.P(C).No.6379 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER:

               HASSAN SANOJ
               AGED 40 YEARS
               S/O. AHAMMED K.P.,
               PERUMPALLI HOUSE, KARUVAMBRUM,
               PALAKULLUM, MANJERI,
               MALAPPURAM - 676 121.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI. P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
               SMT. JAHANA SHERIN.K
               SRI. K.SIYAMURSHID

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
               SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION,
               MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

      3        SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,
               MANJERI, VELLARANGAL,
               MANJERI,
               KERALA - 676 121.

               SMT A.C VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).No.6379 OF 2021

                                       2

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2 nd

respondent District Collector under sub-section (4) of Section 45A

of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, challenging Ext.P1 order

No.C/111/2017-P3/2017 dated 18.03.2017 of the 3 rd respondent

Sub Registrar, Manjeri, has filed this writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 2nd respondent District Collector for expeditious

disposal of Ext.P2 appeal. The petitioner has also sought for an

order for registration of the instrument, on the stamp duty already

paid by the petitioner before the Sub Registrar, Manjeri.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is non-disposal of Ext.P2

statutory appeal filed under sub-section (4) of Section 45A of the

Kerala Stamp Act, against Ext.P1 order dated 18.03.2017 of the 3 rd

respondent Sub Registrar.

4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that in

case Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner is in order and the same

is pending consideration, the 2nd respondent will consider the same W.P(C).No.6379 OF 2021

and pass appropriate orders, within a time limit to be fixed by this

Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

consideration of Ext.P2 appeal may be with notice to the petitioner

and after affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the

2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2

appeal filed by the petitioner, if that appeal is in order and pending

consideration, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him

an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this judgment.

7. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC

309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to

direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of

law or to do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara Rao

A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that,

generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to

law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of W.P(C).No.6379 OF 2021

the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule

of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary

to what has been injected by law.

8. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this

judgment, the 2nd respondent shall take an appropriate decision in

the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the

relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE SPR W.P(C).No.6379 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 18.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, MANJERI.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 25.03.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:      NIL.