Kerala High Court
Alvin Medicare Private Ltd vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 3 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WA NO. 632 OF 2024
WP(C) NO.12506 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ALVIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD.
5/3429, 1ST FLOOR, C BLOCK, BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
PUTHIYARA.P.O, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
VINEETH ABRAHAM., PIN - 673004
M.SASINDRAN
JOGGY MATHUNNI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673001
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695001
Addl. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KASABA VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT - PIN - 673004
Addl. 4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE.P.O. PIN - 673001
(Addl.R3 and R4 are impleaded as per order dated
03.05.2024 in I.A.No.1/2024)
SR.GP.- C.S.SHEEJA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.05.2024,
ALONG WITH WA.628/2024, 634/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 632 OF 2024 & con.cases.
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WA NO. 628 OF 2024
WP(C) NO.12390 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ALVIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD.,
5/3429, 1ST FLOOR, C BLOCK, BABY MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL, PUTHIYARA.P.O., KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DIRECTOR, VINEETH ABRAHAM, PIN - 673004
M.SASINDRAN
JOGGY MATHUNNI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR
KOZHIKODE,, CIVIL STATION, JUMA MASJID,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, WAYANAD ROAD,
CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673020
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KASABA VILLAGE OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673001
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE.P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673001
(Addl.R4 and R5 are impleaded as per order dated
03.05.2024 in I.A.No.1/2024)
SR.GP.- SMT.C.S.SHEEJA
WA NO. 632 OF 2024 & con.cases.
3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.05.2024, ALONG WITH WA.632/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 632 OF 2024 & con.cases.
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WA NO. 634 OF 2024
WP(C) NO.12275 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ALVIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD.,
5/3429. 1ST FLOOR, C BLOCK, BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODEREPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR - VINEETH ABRAHAM, PIN - 673004
M.SASINDRAN
JOGGY MATHUNNI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ SUB COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION JUMA MASJID, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA., PIN - 673020
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE
WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
4 ADDL . R4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KASABA VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT. PIN - 673001
5 ADDL .R5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE.P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673001
WA NO. 632 OF 2024 & con.cases.
5
(ADDL R4 and R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
3.5.2024 IN IA NO.1/24 ),
SR.GP.- SMT.C.S.SHEEJA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.05.2024, ALONG WITH WA.632/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 632 OF 2024 & con.cases.
6
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.632/2024, 628/2024, 634/2024]
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant - company is before us, asserting that the
time frame fixed by the learned Single Judge is excessive.
2. Smt.C.S.Sheeja - learned Senior Government Pleader,
however, submitted that more than 20,500 applications are still
pending; and that giving priority to one among them would set a
bad precedent. She added that the statutory enquiry will take
some time and hence that the appellant cannot seek any further
indulgence, particularly when they made the applications only in
February, 2024. She asserted that there is no urgency in these
cases because the documents in question, qua the appellant,
were all executed in the years 2015 and 2016.
3. Sri.M.Sasindran - learned counsel for the appellant,
however, submitted that not all the afore 20,500 and odd
applications are filed with urgency; and that in the case of his
client, they are awaiting clearance so as to have regularisation
for the expansion of a hospital. He submitted that this certainly
gives them a right to seek priority especially when the applicable
Statute fixes much lesser periods; and hence that the learned
Single Judge ought to have fixed a lesser time frame than what
WA NO. 632 OF 2024 & con.cases.
has been done in the impugned judgments.
4. We must say upfront that, in normal circumstances, we
would be loathe in intervening with any direction given by the
learned Single Judge exercising discretionary powers. The time
frame fixed by the learned Judge in the impugned judgments is
certainly within that realm; but taking into account the specific
assertion of the appellant that there is an urgency involved on
account of the requirement of expansion of the hospital, we deem
it appropriate to grant limited relief to them; however, without in
any manner construing it to mean that the impugned judgments
are in error in any manner whatsoever. It is our firm opinion that
there is no error in the judgment, but taking into account the
peculiar circumstances involved, we deem it appropriate to grant
some relief.
5. Resultantly, the time frame fixed by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgments will stand modified to the
effect that the Village Officer will consider the applications, as
ordered therein, within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment; while final orders in terms of
law shall be issued by the RDO within a further period of six
weeks thereafter.
WA NO. 632 OF 2024 & con.cases.
Needless to say, the afore directions have been issued only
in the specific circumstances of these cases and cannot be taken
as to operate as a precedent even in analogous circumstances in
future.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/- EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
stu
