Kerala High Court
M/S Powerlink Builders Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
Tuesday, the 22nd day of October 2024 / 30th Aswina, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17197 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
M/S POWERLINK BUILDERS PVT. LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SRI.PRADEEP P., AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE PRABHAKARA MENON,
G-3, AISWARYA, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695003
RESPONDENT:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION,
VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3. THE SUB REGISTRAR SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to accept the sale deeds
presented by the petitioner for registration without insisting on the
passport size photograph and fingerprint of the person who had executed
the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner, pending disposal of the
Writ Petition (Civil).
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this court's judgement dated
09.09.2024 in WA 1266/2024 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S
PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, AKASH S., GIRISH KUMAR M S & DEVIKA JAYARAJ
Advocates for the petitioners, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for R1 to R3, the court
passed the following:
GOPINATH P., J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P (C) No. 17197 OF 2023
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
ORDER
By judgment dated 02-08-2024 I had allowed W.P (C)
No.17179/2023. A review petition was filed seeking review of the
judgment on the ground that there was suppression of material facts and
also failure to implead necessary parties to the writ petition. On a
consideration of the review petition, by order dated 02-08-2024, I had
allowed the review petition finding clearly that there is suppression of
material facts disentitling the petitioner to any relief from this court in
exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed W.A. No.1266/2024
and the Division Bench of this court through judgment dated 09-09-2024
has held as follows;
"2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted
that the claim made by the land-owner had been
disproved by an Arbitrator and the land-owner was all
along was unsuccessful before the Arbitrator and civil
court. Therefore, there is no necessity to implead him
and there exists no subsisting dispute.
3. On the otherhand, the land-owner submitted that
seven cases are pending and a status quo order has been
passed by the civil court. Any way we note that the
appellant ought to have disclosed the factum of dispute with
the land-owner and also the reasons for non-coopeoration
of the power of attorney holder to register the document.
Had these facts been disclosed, learned Single Judge would
have directed the appellant-builder to implead the land-
owner. Having not done so, the appellant committed a
grave error in seeking equitable relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. At the same time, we are of the
view that the appellant has been denied an opportunity to
present his case on merit. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for any relief under public law is a matter to be decided on
merit. We are of the view that the appeal can be allowed on
payment of a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand
only), out of which, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)
shall be paid to the learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents and the remaining Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand
only) shall be paid to the Kerala High Court Legal Service
Committee within one week. On deposit of the above
amount, the writ petition shall stand restored and the
learned Judge shall reconsider the matter on merits after
hearing both sides."
The petitioner has now paid the cost as directed to be paid by the Division
Bench and this matter is listed before this court along with an application for
amendment of the writ petition and an application for impleading the review
petitioner. Since the writ petition does not pertain to roster of this court, I
am of the view that this matter must be listed in accordance with the roster
before the appropriate court. Registry is directed to list this matter on 24-10-
2024 in accordance with roster.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
22-10-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
