K.P. Jyothish vs Kannur Corporation
2024 Latest Caselaw 24 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 24 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 January, 2024

Kerala High Court

K.P. Jyothish vs Kannur Corporation on 3 January, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 35232 OF 2015
PETITIONERS:

            K.P. JYOTHISH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. K.V.
            BHASKARAN, PROPRIETOR, GEETHA BAKERY,
            MUNICIPALITY SHOPPING COMPLEX, ROOM NO.3, CALTEX
            KANNUR RESIDING AT KRISHNA KRIPA, SOUTH BAZAR,
            KANNUR.
            BY ADV SRI.C.K.SREEJITH


RESPONDENTS:

    1       KANNUR CORPORATION
            REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR-670002.
    2       THE COUNCIL KANNUR CORPORATION
            REP. BY ITS MAYOR, KANNUR-670002.
    3       THE LOCAL FUND AUDITOR
            DEPARTMENT OF AUDIT LOCAL FUNDS, COLLECTORATE,
            GOVT. OF KERALA, KANNUR-670001.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.ARUN ANTONY
            SMT.M.MEENA JOHN
            SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SR.


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI BS SYAMANTAK, GP


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   03.01.2024,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).35232/2015
                                             2



                  P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
               -------------------------------------------
                   W.P(C).No.35232 of 2015
               -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2024


                                 JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

a) Issue writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P1 notice & P3 order.

b) Issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or order declaring that the 3rd respondent has no authority to recommend the corporation to enhance the license fee and insist for additional security deposit.

c) Issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or order declaring that the enhancement of 25% of the license fee is excessive.

d) Issue writ of certiorari quashing additional demand of security deposit as demanded in Ext.P3.

e) Issue any other relief that this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including the permission to pay additional demand of enhanced license fee limiting it to 10%.

[SIC] W.P(C).35232/2015

2. The petitioner is the licensee under the 1 st respondent. A

room was taken possession by the petitioner in the year 1985 for a

monthly license fee of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is the case of the

petitioner that the security deposit was also paid to the tune of

Rs.90,000/- ie, 30 months license fee together. It is the case of the

petitioner that the 3rd respondent has raised objection while

conducting audit. Due to such audit objection, the 1 st respondent

has issued a demand notice demanding additional amount as

difference of license with effect from March 2011. Vide Ext.P3

order, the petitioner was also directed to deposit an amount of

Rs.93,840/- as the additional security deposit. It is the case of the

petitioner that, erstwhile municipality has never issued notice for

enhancement of license fee and security deposit. According to the

petitioner, the enhancement of license fee is 25% at a time. It is the

further case of the petitioner that, there was no demand or

enhancement till the issuance of Ext.P1 and it is only because of the

audit objection, the excessive demand is made. The petitioner

submitted Ext.P2 when Ext.P1 is received. Thereafter, Ext.P3 is

issued by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ

Petition is filed.

W.P(C).35232/2015

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents and also the

learned Government Pleader.

4. Ext.P1 is the demand notice. Ext.P2 is the explanation

given by the petitioner to the Secretary of the 1 st respondent. A

perusal of Ext.P2 would show that the prayer in Ext.P2 is only to

reduce the license fee @10% and to give 5 installments to pay the

amount. The same is not properly considered and thereafter Ext.P3

is issued.

5. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration on

12.02.2016, this Court passed the following order:

'Admit.

Government Pleader takes notice for R3. Adv.Arun Antony, Standing Counsel takes notie for R1 and R2.

There will be an interim stay of coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P3 notice on condition that the petitioner remits one-half of the amount demanded thereunder with the first respondent within a period of one month.' W.P(C).35232/2015

6. In the light of the above order, I am of the considered

opinion that the 1st respondent has to reconsider the matter based

on Ext.P2, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Till then, the interim order already passed can continue.

Therefore this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

a) The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P2, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.