Santosh Sebastian vs Pala Municipality
2024 Latest Caselaw 29919 Ker

Kerala High Court

Santosh Sebastian vs Pala Municipality on 22 October, 2024

WP(C) NO. 32141 OF 2024              1


                                                       2024:KER:79252
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

     TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA, 1946

                          WP(C) NO. 32141 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

            SANTOSH SEBASTIAN,
            AGED 46 YEARS
            S/O. RAMACHADRAN NAIR,
            RESIDING AT MOOCHAYIL HOUSE,
            MURIKKUMPUZHA, PALA POST, PALA,
            KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575


            BY ADVS.
            JAI GEORGE
            DAISY A.PHILIPOSE


RESPONDENTS:

    1       PALA MUNICIPALITY,
            PALA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX,
            PALA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680027

    2       SECETARY OF PALA MUNICIPALITY,
            PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL
            COMPLEX, PALA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 680027


            BY ADV. SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, STANDING COUNSEL


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
22.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 32141 OF 2024                   2


                                                                        2024:KER:79252
                                      JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent

to return the security deposit collected from the petitioner for granting a

licence for the shop room on the ground floor bearing No. G-11 of Thekkekara

Shopping Complex owned by the Municipality.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that

the Municipality is presently not having the funds to refund the security

deposit.

3. As per the terms of Ext.P1 agreement, the Municipality is bound to

refund the deposit on the expiry of the term. Hence, the financial stringency of

the Municipality does not justify the withholding of amounts legitimately due

to the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore allowed with the following

directions;

(i) The respondents shall refund the amount due to the petitioner

after deductions, if any, within an outer limit of two months of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

(ii) If the amount is not refunded within the time granted it shall carry

interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of expiry of the two month

period up to the date of disbursal.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE DCS

2024:KER:79252 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32141/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 22.9.2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.8.2024 ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/2/2024 IN W.P.C NO: 42562 OF 2023