Kerala High Court
P.P.Shereef vs Kottayam Municipality on 27 July, 2022
WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011
PETITIONER/S:
P.P.SHEREEF, THAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THAZHATHANGADI, KOTTAYAM-686 005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN
SRI.S.MOHANDAS
SRI.GNR.UNNITHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,, KOTTAYAM
MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR R.R.
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SRI.SIBY MATHEW
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14936 OF 2011 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.14936 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction to the
respondents calling for the records leading to Exts.P2, P3
demand notices and Ext.P5 RR notice and to quash the same.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the 1 st
respondent to refund the licence fee of Rs.16,428/- with
interest from 2000 onwards.
(iii) Such other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deem fit and
necessary
(iv) Costs of this proceedings."
2. The petitioner entered into an agreement of licence
with the 1st respondent Municipality for conducting petty
business in a small Bunk in the year 2001. It is the case of the
petitioner that the agreement was entered into on the basis of
a promise by the 1st respondent that the bunk which is
dilapidated and made using tin sheets would be repaired and
make available in a usable condition. Advance licence fee of
Rs.8214/- and security amount for the same amount of
Rs.8214/- was paid to the 1st respondent. During the monsoon
period of 2001, the bunk was destroyed completely and it is
the case of the petitioner that the Municipality removed the
same. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation for either
reconstructing the same or refunding the paid amounts which
was not heeded by the 1st respondent, is the contention of the
petitioner. Subsequently, after a long period of nearly 10
years, the petitioner received demand notice of Exts.P2 and P3
and also revenue recovery proceedings as evident by Ext.P5. It
is the case of the petitioner that it is highly improper on the
part of the Municipality to demand such huge amount after
lapse of a decade. If the demand of the Municipality is genuine,
the Municipality ought to have demand the dues at the earliest.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not even
taken D&O licence. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his
contentions. The counsel also relied the judgment of the Apex
Court in State of Punjab v. Bhatinda Dist. Co-operative
Milk P.Union Ltd. [2007 (4) KLT SN 52] and submitted that
even though if there is any amount due that is barred by
limitation. The counsel submitted that recovery proceedings
was initiated after about a decade.
5. This Court perused Ext.P1 representation submitted
by the petitioner. Ext.P1 is dated 4.8.2001. Thereafter, Ext.P2
and P3 notices were issued in the year 2010. The petitioner
submitted Ext.P4 representation to Exts.P2 and P3. Thereafter,
the revenue recovery proceedings was initiated. No orders are
passed in Ext.P4.
6. When this writ petition came up for consideration,
this Court stayed all further proceedings consequent to
Exts.P2, P3 and P5 and the interim order is in force even now.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I think there can be
a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 within a
time frame, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. The 1st respondent will consider the dictum laid
down by the Apex Court in Bhatinda Dist.'s case (supra) also.
Till final orders are closed, the interim order already passed
can be allowed to continue.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions :
1) There will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider
and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P4 after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within five months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2) Till final orders are passed, all further proceedings
consequent to Exts.P2, P3 and P5 are deferred.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.8.01
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 5.8.2010 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.9.10 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.10.10
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DN-1798 DATED 15.3.11
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 5.12.03 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO BIJU MATHEW
EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.9.10 TO
ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO ELIKKUTTY JOSEPH.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
