K.Sahadevan vs The Corporation Of Kozhikode And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10757 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 32863 OF 2011
PETITIONER/S:

            K.SAHADEVAN
            BEAUTY LAND, PARAYANCHERY P.O.,
            KUTHIRAVATTOM,, KOZHIKODE-673 016.
            BY ADV SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE AND ORS
            CORPORATION BUILDING, KOZHIKODE-673 001,,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
    2       DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.
    3       THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY
            O/O THE TAHSILDAR, CIVIL STATION,,
            KOZHIKODE-673 001.
            BY ADV SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.JUSTIN JACOB, SR.GP
            SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH, SC,


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   21.10.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      -2-
W.P.(C). No. 32863 of 2011



                             P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                             ======================================================

                              W.P.(C) No. 32863 of 2011
                        =============================================================

                  Dated this the 21th day of October, 2022

                                          JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same.

ii) To declare that no action shall be initiated against the petitioner for recovering any amount towards license fee which has clearly become barred by limitation.

iii) Such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case." (sic)

2. The petitioner was a businessman having shop

dealing in stationery and fancy articles. The shop was in the

ground floor of the Jayanti Buiding with room No.6B. The

building is owned by the 1st respondent Corporation. It is the

case of the petitioner that almost all the rooms in the above

building, which is near Palayam bus stand have been let out by

the 1st respondent Corporation. In the above building room

W.P.(C). No. 32863 of 2011

No.5 on the 3rd floor was taken on lease by the petitioner. The

above room was taken on license by the petitioner as per

agreement dated 01.03.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that

though the agreement was executed in 1994 and the validity of

the agreement expired in February, 2006 the petitioner was

unable to carry on his business in the above premises.

According to the petitioner, it was due to a number of factors

which then prevailed. The petitioner could not continue the

business at the above premises beyond April, 2003. But still,

the petitioner had paid the license fee till July, 2003. Thereafter,

he was not in occupation of the said premises and this fact was

made known to the officers of the 1st respondent, is the

submission of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents issued

Ext.P1 notice in which an amount of Rs.82,805/- is claimed as

licence fee and penal interest. According to the petitioner,

Ext.P1 is unsustainable for different reasons. It is submitted that

the claim is in 2011 which is barred by limitation under Section

W.P.(C). No. 32863 of 2011

539 of the Municipality Act. It is also submitted that in the light

of Ext.P3 reply under the Right to Information Act, will show

that the respondent is initiated steps contrary to the provisions

of the Municipality Act. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing

Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. I also heard the

Government Pleader for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that

Ext.P1 notice is barred by limitation in the light of Section 539

of the Municipality Act. This point is not raised by the

petitioner before the 1st respondent. According to me, this is a

matter to be considered by the 1st respondent after reconsidering

the entire issue. The petitioner is free to raise all other

contentions also before the 1st respondent. To facilitate the 1st

respondent to pass fresh orders, Ext.P1 can be set aside.

W.P.(C). No. 32863 of 2011

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following

lines:

1. Ext.P1 is set aside.

2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das

W.P.(C). No. 32863 of 2011

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32863/2011

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28-9-11 AND SERVED ON 11-10-2011.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT, DATED 31-10-2011.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO P2 DATED 21-

11-2011.