Sujith Mohan vs Pala Municipality
2022 Latest Caselaw 6065 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 24379 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            SUJITH MOHAN,
            AGED 38 YEARS,
            S/O.MOHANAN P.K., THUNDIYIL HOUSE, POOVARANY
            VILLAGE, EADAMATTOM POST, PALA 686 578.

            BY ADVS.
            JAI GEORGE
            DAISY A.PHILIPOSE



RESPONDENTS:

    1       PALA MUNICIPALITY,
            MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, PALA 686 575, REP.BY ITS
            SECRETARY.

    2       THE SECRETARY,
            PALA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX,
            PALA 686 575.


     SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY




     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   01.06.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24379 OF 2021              2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022

The petitioner, who remitted `8,32,537/- as security deposit

to the 1st respondent-Municipality for allotment of a shop room, is

before this Court seeking to direct the 1 st respondent to return the

deposit collected form the petitioner within a time frame.

2. The petitioner states that he was allotted a shop room and

he remitted `8,32,537/- as security deposit to the 1 st respondent.

Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner was not able to start the

business in the shop room and therefore, the petitioner surrendered

the shop room on 01.01.2021 by handing over the key and entire

dues. The 1st respondent accepted the key and the dues. But, the

security deposit was not returned in spite of Ext.P2 representation.

It is in such circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court.

3. When the writ petition came for admission on 01.12.2021,

this Court passed an interim order directing the Municipality to pay

at least 30% of the amount to the petitioner within one month from

that day.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-

Municipality submitted that in deference to the interim order passed

by this Court, an amount of `3,00,000/- (40% of the outstanding

amount) has been paid to the petitioner. The 1 st respondent has to

return such security deposits to a large number of other persons

also. Due to financial crisis, the 1 st respondent is not in a position to

refund the balance security deposit immediately.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

6. The fact that the petitioner had deposited `8,32,537/- as

security deposit is admitted. The statement of the petitioner that he

surrendered the room on 01.01.2021 to the 1st respondent-

Municipality is not disputed. As the petitioner has surrendered the

shop room, the 1st respondent is bound to release the entire security

deposit due to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the

financial constrains of the 1st respondent cannot be a reason not to

refund a deposit collected from the petitioner by way of security.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is

disposed of directing the 1st respondent to refund the balance

amount due to the petitioner towards security deposit within a period

of six months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE DSV/03.06.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24379/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER R3-8108/15(VOL.II) G 18 DATED 3.2.2019 DEMANDING THE PAYMENT RS.5,62,437/- ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 28.10.2021.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:    NIL