Kerala High Court
Sunil V.R vs Corporation Of Calicut on 7 July, 2025
2025:KER:49792
W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7422 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
SUNIL V.R
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.SRI.T.KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 3/113B,
VANDIPETTA, NADAKKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 011.
BY ADV SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 CORPORATION OF CALICUT
CORPORATION OFFICE, P.B.NO.115, CALICUT - 673
032, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT - 673 020.
3 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY),
REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE - 673 020.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49792
W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014
2
S.MANU, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2014
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Exts.P6 and P8 demand notices were issued by the
respondent Corporation to the petitioner. In Ext.P6 notice
reference was made to the judgment in O.S.No.830/97 (later
re-numbered as O.S.No.132/2000). In the opening paragraph of
Ext.P6 it was stated that late Mr.John Iype was the licesee of
shop room No.4 in old block, I.G. Road, and civil court had
decreed that dues pertaining to the said room shall be
recovered from the legal heirs of Mr.John Iype and his partners.
Petitioner was shown as a partner in Ext.P6. Further it was
stated that the total amount due was equally divided and the
legal heirs as well as the partners should pay Rs.2,68,045/-
each. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply to P6. On 25.6.2013,
Ext.P8 notice was issued stating that the reply was not
satisfactory and hence the amount as demanded should be
2025:KER:49792
remitted, failing which revenue recovery proceedings would be
initiated. Thereafter, Ext.P10 demand notice was issued under
the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act by the 3 rd
respondent on the basis of requisition from the Secretary,
Kozhikode Corporation.
2. Petitioner approached this Court after receiving
Ext.P10 and this Court stayed all further proceedings.
Corporation has filed counter affidavit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
reference in Ext.P6 to the judgment in the civil suit shows that
the Corporation has proceeded against the petitioner without
proper application of mind. He made reference to the copy of
the judgment dated 20th October 2001 of the Subordinate
Judges' Court, Kozhikode in OS 132 of 2000. It shows that the
suit was for injunction and it was dismissed as the counsel for
the plaintiff reported 'no instructions'. The learned counsel
made reference to Ext.P9 reply obtained under the provisions of
the Right to Information Act, which shows that the licensee of
2025:KER:49792
the room was late Mr.John Iype from 3.4.1989 to 20.7.2012.
The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was never a
licensee of the room and an application was submitted in 1997
for transfer of the license in his favour. However, a partner of
the petitioner filed suit for injunction to restrain the transfer. In
2010, an application was submitted by the petitioner again for
issuing license in his name. Corporation intimated that the
original licensee who was no more had not remitted the arrears
of license fee and only if the arrears are cleared the application
can be considered. The petitioner was intimated that he should
pay Rs.5,97,935/- towards the arrears, if the application was to
be considered. Petitioner expressed his inability to do so by a
letter dated 9.3.2011. Impugned proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner thereafter. The learned counsel contended
that there was no legally binding arrangement between the
Corporation and the petitioner at any point of time, with respect
to the room and hence the demand made by the Corporation
was totally baseless and illegal. He further contended that the
2025:KER:49792
alleged liability was time barred and therefore the revenue
recovery proceedings were illegal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation
submitted that the petitioner was a partner of Noble Enterprises
and had 45% of its shares. Late Mr.John Iype was also a
partner. Fact that the petitioner and the other partners had
applied for transfer of the room in the name of the petitioner
shows that the room was in use of the partnership firm. When
the Corporation intimated the petitioner that the license of the
room can be transferred to him if he was willing to clear the
arrears, the petitioner conveyed his inability to make the
payments. Thereafter, the room was allotted to another person
through tender. The learned Standing Counsel asserted that
there was no illegality in the proceedings initiated by the
Corporation for recovery of the dues as by his own showing
,petitioner as well as late Mr.John Iype were partners of the firm
which occupied Room No.4. He hence submitted that the writ
petition is without any merits.
2025:KER:49792
5. Proceedings for recovering the amounts from the
petitioner was initiated by the Corporation by misreading the
judgment in O.S.No.132/2000 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode.
Perusal of the said judgment shows that the suit was dismissed
as the counsel for the petitioner reported 'no instructions'. No
finding was rendered by the court on merits. It is surprising that
the Corporation made reference to such a judgment as
justification to proceed against the petitioner.
6. It is also clear that the room in dispute was allotted
to late Mr.John Iype. Case of the Corporation is that the
licensee as well as the petitioner were partners of a partnership
firm and the room was utilized by the said firm. However, there
is no material to show that the room was occupied by the
partnership firm. As noted above, license was issued in the
name of an individual. Hence, Corporation should have
proceeded against the said individual or his legal heirs for
recovery of the dues. The Corporation, however without any
materials in support of such a decision, apportioned the dues
2025:KER:49792
into three and decided to recover the same from the legal heirs
of the original licensee, the petitioner and another person. The
said decision of the Corporation cannot be approved. There was
no legally binding arrangement/agreement between the
Corporation and the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the
demand raised against the petitioner cannot be sustained. The
contention regarding limitation need not be considered as I have
found that the demand was not sustainable.
In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is
allowed. Exts.P6, P8 and P10 are quashed.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:49792
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7422/2014
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/10/2001 IN OS
132 OF 2000 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT,
KOZHIKODE.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 20/10/2001 IN OS
132/2000 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT,
KOZHIKODE.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICTION DATED 25/02/2010
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.A29/19830/95
DATED 27/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09/03/2011 BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE BEARING
NO.A29/19830/95 DATED 11/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/03/2013 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.A29/9830/95
DATED 25/06/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NO.A29/150208/13
DATED 23/12/2013 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE BEARING
NO.2013/40098/11 DATED 13/9/2013.
