Jacob Thomas vs Adoor Municipality
2022 Latest Caselaw 8298 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 21501 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

           JACOB THOMAS,
           AGED 63 YEARS
           S/O. LATE P.O, THOMAS, PADINJARE VEEDU, MANAKALA P.O,
           KARUVATTA, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 551.
           BY ADV JITHIN BABU A


RESPONDENT/S:

    1      ADOOR MUNICIPALITY,
           ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 503, REPRESENTED
           BY ITS SECRETARY.
    2      THE SECRETARY,
           ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
           689 503.
    3      THE STANDING COMMITTEE (FINANCE) OF ADOOR MUNICIPAL
           COUNCIL,
           ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-
           689 503
    4      CHAIRMAN,
           MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR P.O,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 503.
           ADV. K SHAJ, SC
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 21501 OF 2022                   2



                                   JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by

the fact that while Ext.P4 appeal and Ext.P6 application for stay

are pending before respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively,

coercive steps has been taken to recover the amount demanded

in Ext.P3 notice.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

demand in Ext.P3 illegal and unsustainable and any steps to

recover the same pending disposal of the appeal will cause great

prejudice to the petitioner.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent Municipality submits that the municipality has no

objection in a direction being issued to the 4 th respondent to

consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application for stay. It is also

submitted that the recovery of amounts under Ext.P3 can be kept

in abeyance till a decision is taken by the Chairman on Ext.P6.

4. Having regard to the afore submissions, this writ

petition will stand disposed of, directing the 4 th respondent to

consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application for stay preferred

by the petitioner under Section 509 (3) of the Kerala

Municipality Act, as expeditiously as possible, after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such time orders

are passed on Ext.P6, any demand pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be

kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21501/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED BUILDING PERMIT NO. BA 385/08-09 DATED 07.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 17.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. R1/2887/22 DATED 14.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21.06.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. 5978 DATED 21.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 21.06.2022 UNDER SECTION 509 (3) OF THE KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT, 1994, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. 5976 DATED 21.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.