Suma Karunakaran vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23579 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
   TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 23627 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SUMA KARUNAKARAN
          AGED 50 YEARS
          W/O. ANILKUMAR, KALADI VEEDU, PUTHIYA ROAD,
          KADAVANTHRA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682020.
          BY ADVS.
          K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
          DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
          HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
    2     THE SECRETARY
          THRISSUR CORPORATION, HAVING OFFICE AT OFFICE OF
          THRISSUR CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR
          DISTRICT, KERALA - 680001.
    3     THRISSUR CORPORATION
          MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA -
          68001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
          BY ADV SHRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL,
          SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION


          RIYAL DEVASSY-GP



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.23627 OF 2021

                                         2


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of November 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the

following reliefs:-

"(i)To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the second and 3rd respondents to handover the possession of the shop room bearing No.4 of Naduvilal Shopping Centre, Thrissur of 3rd respondent forthwith in the interests of justice.

(ii)To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the fourth respondent to permit the petitioner to open the shop room bearing No.4 of Naduvilal Shopping Centre, Thrissur of 3rd respondent in the interests of justice."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned standing counsel appearing for the

respondent corporation.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is a licensee of a shop

room under the respondent corporation. It is submitted

that on 29.01.2020, the petitioner was informed that

the license fee of the shop room stands enhanced. It is

submitted that though the petitioner requested for

permission to remit the license fee at the unrevised WP(C).No.23627 OF 2021

rates, the request was not considered by the

respondents. The petitioner is now required to vacate

the premises vide Exhibit P8 order. The petitioner had

approached the Tribunal and by Exhibit P8 order, the

notice issued by the Corporation requiring the petitioner

to vacate the premises was stayed. There was a further

direction to the petitioner to remit 25% of the rent

demanded. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that though the 25% of the rent

demanded has been remitted by the petitioner, the

respondents are not handing over the key of the

premises and permitting the petitioner to conduct

business in the premises. It is submitted that this

action is clearly against Exhibit P9 order passed by the

Tribunal.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for

the Tribunal submits that in an earlier instance when

Exhibit P7 order had been passed by the Tribunal, in

another appeal, with regard to the same shop, there had

been a clear direction by the Tribunal to handover WP(C).No.23627 OF 2021

possession of the shop room to the petitioner and not to

disturb the peaceful functioning of the shop. It is

submitted that it was thereafter, that Exhibit P8

proceedings had been issued against the petitioner. It is

stated that in Exhibit P9, though the impugned decision

is stayed, there is no direction to hand over the

possession which had actually been taken over in August

2021, which is the reason why the keys of the shop

room were not handed over. It is further submitted by

the learned standing counsel for the Corporation that

the Corporation had moved the Tribunal for a

clarification with regard to the handing over of the

possession of the shop room and that the matter stands

posted for a further hearing on 09.12.2021. It is

further submitted that it is only because of the

submission made on behalf of the petitioner before the

Tribunal that this writ petition is pending that the matter

could not be finally heard and decided on.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either

side, I notice that Exhibit P9 order specifically stays the WP(C).No.23627 OF 2021

order impugned in the appeal and directs the appellant

to deposit 25% of the fee arrears. The combined effect,

therefore, would be that if the petitioner remits the

amount as required, the impugned order would stand

stayed and the petitioner would be enabled to take

possession of the shop room. However, in view of the

fact that the learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the matter is pending consideration of the Tribunal

and since it is submitted that an application for

clarification has been moved before the Tribunal, I am of

the opinion that it is for the Tribunal to take an

appropriate decision on the request made by the

petitioner for handing over the keys of the premises to

the petitioner immediately. There will,

accordingly, be direction to the Tribunal to consider the

request of the petitioner for handing over possession of

the shop room to the petitioner on the strength of

Exhibit P9 order and the remittances made by him at

the next date of posting itself. Appropriate orders shall

be passed by the Tribunal in this regard, at any rate WP(C).No.23627 OF 2021

within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SSK/30/11 WP(C).No.23627 OF 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.01.2010 Exhibit P1 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.05.2019 Exhibit P2 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.01.2020 Exhibit P3 OF 3RD RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.10.2020 Exhibit P4 OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF OS.NO.441/2021 FILED BY THE Exhibit P5 PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 18.08.2021.

TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 31.08.2021 OF Exhibit P6 THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.09.2021 IN I.A.NO.899/2021 IN APPEAL NO.413/2021 OF Exhibit P7 TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 22.09.2021 Exhibit P8 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.10.2021 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, Exhibit P9 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN I.A.NO.1074/2021 IN APPEAL NO.496/2021.

TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 21.10.2021 Exhibit P10 TAKEN THE PETITIONER IN THE NAME OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 21.10.2021 Exhibit P11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED Exhibit P12 28/10/2021 OF THE REVENUE OFFICER, THRISSUR CORPORATION.

A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 2/11/2021 Exhibit P13 TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER IN THE NAME OF THRISSUR CORPORATION RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE