Betoo K. Thomas vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 27251 Ker

Kerala High Court

Betoo K. Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024


                             1
                                              2024:KER:69598


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

  WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA,

                            1946

                  WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

         BETOO K. THOMAS,
         AGED 50 YEARS
         S/O. K.V. THOMAS,RESIDING KANNAMTHANATHU HOUSE,
         VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, ERATHU, VADAKARAMURI,
         CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686543


         BY ADVS.SRI.R.N.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, (SR)
         R.RANJANIE
         MEERA M.




RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         TRIVANDRUM., PIN - 685001

    2    THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
         DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, COLLECTORATE,
         KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002

    3    THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE,
         MANIMALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM,
         PIN - 686543
 WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024


                                2
                                                  2024:KER:69598



    4       THE GEOLOGIST,
            OFFICE OF THE GEOLOGIST, COLLECTORATE,
            KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002

    5       K.V.ABRAHAM,
            AGED 67 YEARS
            LATE S/O. K.C.VARGHESE,
            KUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALPATHIPADI,
            VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686010


            BY ADVS.
            HARIDAS P
            BIJU HARIHARAN(K/1767/1995)
            SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW(K/907/2005)
            P.C.SHIJIN(K/397/2012)
            ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB(K/1017/2011)
            PRAJISHA O.K.(K/002738/2023)



OTHER PRESENT:

            RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024


                                      3
                                                             2024:KER:69598




                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner runs a crusher unit with valid permits and

licences. The 5th respondent runs a quarry. According to the 5 th

respondent, he has entered into an agreement with the petitioner

whereby he advanced certain sum of money to the petitioner on

condition that the petitioner would transfer 50% of the share over

the crusher unit. It appears that, thereafter dispute arose between

the petitioner and the 5th respondent, which resulted in the

institution of a suit by the 5th respondent against the petitioner

before the Munsiff Court, Changanassery, as O.S.No.198 of 2024.

The petitioner, along with the plaint, filed an application for

interim injunction. The prayer in the interim injunction application

is as follows:-

To pass an order of temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/defendants or men under them from transferring the plaint A(a) schedule crusher unit as per the agreement dated 01.07.2020 in such a way as to affected the right and title of the petitioner and from causing any actions detrimental to the plaintiff's rights and title over the plaint schedule A(a) crusher unit, obstructing the operation of the said crusher unit by the plaintiff, removing the raw materials stored by the plaintiff in plaint A schedule property and from WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024

2024:KER:69598

committing any act of waste therein in the plaint A schedule property.

2. The learned Munsiff passed an order of status quo.

Ext.P10 would show that a copy of the said status quo order was

forwarded by the learned Munsiff to respondents 3 and 4.

Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P11 notice to the

petitioner directing him to maintain status quo. The 4th respondent

issued Ext.P12 stop memo to the petitioner, directing him not to

remove the stock from the crusher unit or to transact the business.

It is challenging Exts.P11 and P12, the petitioner has filed this writ

petition.

3. I have heard Sri.R.N.Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned

Senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Haridas P, the learned counsel

for the 5th respondent and Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned

Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

Exts.P11 and P12 were issued by the respondents 3 and 4 without

authority and misinterpreting the status quo order passed by the

Munsiff Court. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent submitted WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024

2024:KER:69598

that the status quo order passed by the Munsiff Court includes

maintaining status quo with regard to removal of raw materials

stored by the petitioner in the plaint A schedule property and hence

respondents 3 and 4 were justified in issuing Exts.P11 and P12. The

learned Government Pleader submitted that Exts.P11 and P12 were

passed by the respondents 3 and 4 respectively bonafidely to comply

with the directions of the learned Munsiff.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is running the crusher unit with

valid licences and permits. According to the 5th respondent, as per the

agreement allegedly executed between him and the petitioner, the

petitioner had agreed to transfer 50% of the share over the crusher

unit to him. The main relief sought in the plaint has been sought in

the interim injunction application as well. It is pertinent to note that

no interim injunction was granted by the learned Munsiff. On the

other hand, what was granted was a status quo order, that too an ex-

parte one. It appears that the petitioner has entered appearance

before the Munsiff Court and filed a counter statement. However,

before finally hearing the interim injunction application, the 4 th

respondent hastily issued the stop memo. The reason shown in WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024

2024:KER:69598

Ext.P12 stop memo is that, the Munsiff Court had ordered status quo.

The 4th respondent interpreted the said status quo order as one

restraining the petitioner from removing the stock from the crusher

unit or transacting business in the crusher unit. The status quo order

passed by the Munsiff cannot at all be interpreted so.

6. In the absence of a specific order restraining the petitioner

from removing the stock from the crusher unit or transacting

business, the 4th respondent ought not have passed Ext.P12 stop

memo, that too before giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being

heard. The respondent has also no authority to issue a notice in the

nature of Ext.P11. Hence, Exts.P11 and P12 cannot be sustained and

accordingly, they are set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that

the 5th respondent has also filed another application for injunction

and there may be a direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose of the

injunction application at the earliest. The Munsiff Court,

Changanassery is directed to complete the pleadings in the

interlocutory applications for injunction, hear and dispose them

within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024

2024:KER:69598

judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024

2024:KER:69598

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29872/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 17.3.2020 BEARING NO. 474/2020 OF KARUKACHAL SUB REGISTRY

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 18.4.2024, ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE,

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 28.6.2024 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER,

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.7.

2020 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 5 TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.

198/2024 DATED 18.7.2024, FILED BY THE 5 TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNISIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY,

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 26.7.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A. NO 1 OF 2024 IN O.S NO. 198/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNISIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 24.7.2024 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.198/2024 ON THE FILE OF MUNISIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY,

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 5 OF 2024 IN O.S.NO. 198/2024 DATED 26.7.2024 FILED WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024

2024:KER:69598

BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNISIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNISIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY IN I.A.NO.1/2024 IN O.S.NO. 198/2024 DATED 24.7.2024,

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS QUO ORDER DATED 1.8.2024 SAID TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY IN I.A.NO.1/2024 IN O.S.NO.198/2024,

EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.8.2024, ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER,

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO – CUM – SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO DOKOT-

DMG/1224/2023-M DATED 2.8.2024, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT,

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.8.2024 IN I.A.NO.1/2024 IN O.S.NO.198/2024 PASSED BY THE MUNISIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY,

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/08/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH EXT.P13,

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSIT PASS ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED BY THE PETITIONER ON 27.07.2024

EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 6/2024 IN O.S. NO.

198/2024 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHNAGANASSERY DATED 17.07.2024 WP(C) NO. 29872 OF 2024

2024:KER:69598

EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 7/2024 IN O.S. NO.

198/2024 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHNAGANASSERY DATED 31.07.2024