Kerala High Court
Ajims M.M vs Rafeek V. A on 31 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA No.2479 of 2025
2025:KER:81789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 2479 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2025 in IA NO.4 OF 2025 IN
WP(C) NO.13402 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED AS ADDL 5TH RESPONDENT:
AJIMS M.M,
AGED 54 YEARS
SON OF MAITHEEN, MATTAKOMBIL HOUSE, METHALA P.O,
KURUPPAMPADY VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545
BY ADV SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 :
1 RAFEEK V. A,
SON OF ABDUL RAHMAN, VALANGOTTIL HOUSE, MAVINCHUVADU,
MUDIKKAL P.O, PARTNER, M/S.RAS PLYWOOD AND BOARDS, PIN
- 683547
2 M/S. RAS PLYWOOD AND BOARDS,
RAYAMANGALAM, NANGELIPADY, PULLUVAZHY P.O, REPRESENTED
BY ITS PARTNER, RAFEEK V. A, PIN - 683541
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
685001
2
WA No.2479 of 2025
2025:KER:81789
4 DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER,FIRE AND RESCUE
SERVICES, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682020
5 RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KEEZHILLAM-
KURICHILACODE ROAD, RAYAMANGALAM, KERALA,, PIN -
683545
6 SHAJI SALIM,
PALATHINKAL HOUSE, KADAVUL, OLD VALLOM ROAD,
PERUMBAVOOR,, PIN - 683542
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
SMT.MEERA GOPINATH
SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
SHRI.ANANT KISHORE
SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.G SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2025, THE COURT
ON 31.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WA No.2479 of 2025
2025:KER:81789
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The appellant, who filed an interlocutory application to
implead himself as additional 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.13402
of 2025, filed this intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the interim order dated
11.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.4 of
2025 filed by respondents 1 and 2 - writ petitioners.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1st
respondent is the partner of the 2nd respondent partnership firm
constituted by the 1st respondent and the 6th respondent. The 6th
respondent retired from the firm with effect from 11.03.2024, and
hence the 6th respondent no longer holds any rights or relation
with the firm and he has consented to execute the re-constitution
deed and release deed. Since the 6th respondent revealed his
unwillingness to honour the commitments and he threatened to
trespass into the property of the 2nd respondent firm and disrupt
the function of the firm, respondents 1 and 2 have filed M.A.
(Arbitration) No.1 of 2024 before the Commercial Court,
2025:KER:81789
Perumbavoor and the court was pleased to pass an order
restraining the 6th respondent from trespassing in to the premises
of the 2nd respondent firm. The 6th respondent was the managing
partner of the 2nd respondent firm, and all licenses were applied
and issued in his name, but as he retired, he has no connection
with the 2nd respondent firm. But now, he is misusing the same to
cause ill will to respondents 1 and 2. The 1st respondent submitted
Ext.P7 application to the 4th respondent and requested to transfer
the panchayath license of the 2nd respondent firm to the 1st
respondent's name, which is in the name of the 6 th respondent.
But the application was rejected. Hence, respondents 1 and 2 filed
W.P.(C)No.13402 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
or order, quashing Ext.P8 order and directing the 2 nd
respondent allow Ext.P7 application, in the interests of
justice.
(B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
or order, quashing Ext.P8 order and directing the 2 nd
respondent to consider Exhibit P9 application".
2.1. On 03.04.2025, when the writ petition came up for
2025:KER:81789
consideration, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order
directing the 5th respondent, Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat,
not to initiate any coercive proceedings against the writ petitioners
for non-renewal of licence, for a period of two months.
2.2. Thereafter, the appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the
writ petition to self-implead him as additional 5th respondent,
contending that he had filed W.P.(C)Nos.5810 and 2356 of 2025
before this Court and as per the interim order dated 24.02.2025
this Court directed the Panchayat to continue the proceedings
initiated against respondents 1 and 2-writ petitioners and after a
detailed enquiry the Panchayat issued a stop memo against the
functioning of the factory. The appellant filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 to
vacate the interim order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge, contending that the respondents 1 and 2-writ
petitioners, have obtained that interim order suppressing the
above facts.
2.3. On 10.04.2025, when the writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned Single Judge vacated the interim order
2025:KER:81789
dated 03.04.2025, finding that respondents 1 and 2 -writ
petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and
there is suppression of material facts. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that
order read thus:
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).Nos.2356
of 2025 and 5810 of 2025, which are matters connected
with this writ petition pointed out that, even before filing
this writ petition the petitioner was served with a stop memo
by the Panchayat pointing out several defects. However, the
receipt of the said notice was not referred to in this writ
petition and the copy of the same was also not produced.
Instead of that, they filed a separate writ petition after filing
this writ petition, which was numbered as W.P.(C).No.13884
of 2025, challenging the said show-cause notice.
3. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).Nos.2356 of
2025 and 5810 of 2025, despite the receipt of stop memo,
the same was not referred to in the writ petition and
therefore, it amounts to suppression of material facts.
Therefore, I do not find any justification to continue the
interim order passed by this Court on 03.04.2025.
4. As far as the interim order is concerned, it is a
discretionary relief and one of the crucial aspect the Court
considers is whether the petitioner has approached the
2025:KER:81789
Court with clean hands. Here there is suppression of
material facts and therefore, interim order granted by this
Court on 03.04.2025 is vacated.
2.4. Subsequently, along with I.A.No.3 of 2025, the writ
petitioners have produced Exts.P10 and P11 documents. They
have also filed I.A.No.4 of 2025 in the writ petition seeking
direction against the District Fire Officer to re-consider Ext.P7
application for issuance of Fire NOC in the light of Ext.P11 order
passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in arbitration
proceedings No.1 of 2025 and without insisting for the signature
and consent of 6th respondent (4th respondent in the writ
petition), pending disposal of the writ petition.
2.5. On 11.08.2025, when I.A.No.4 of 2025 came up for
consideration along with the writ petition, the learned Single Judge
passed the impugned order, which reads thus:
"The application is filed to direct the second respondent in
the application to reconsider Ext. P7 application submitted
by the applicants for the issuance of Fire NOC in light of
Ext. P11 interim order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under
Section 17 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
2025:KER:81789
learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel
for the third respondent and the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 4 and 5.
3. On a consideration of the facts and the materials on
record, especially Ext. P11 order passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal, I direct the Tribunal for Local Self Government
Institutions ('Tribunal', for short), Thiruvananthapuram, to
consider R.P. No. 44/2025 filed by the applicants against
the cancellation of the licence, without insisting for the Fire
NOC."
2.6. Being aggrieved, the appellant-additional 5th respondent
sought to be impleaded in the writ petition, filed this writ appeal
with I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking leave of this Court to file the appeal.
2.7. On 06.10.2025, we allowed I.A.No.1 of 2025, granting
leave to the appellant to file this writ appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel of the appellant, the learned
counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 - writ petitioners, the
learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4, the
learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent Grama Panchayat
and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
4. The learned Single judge vacated the interim order dated
2025:KER:81789
03.04.2025 granted in favour of the 1st respondent by the order
dated 10.04.2025 for the reason that there is suppression of
material facts in the writ petition. However, in the affidavit filed in
support of I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025, the 1 st respondent pleaded
that it was due to inadvertent omission, the stop memo issued on
15.03.2025 was omitted to be mentioned in the writ petition,
which was prepared on 24.02.2025, but filed only on 28.03.2025.
It is also averred in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.3 and
4 of 2025 that one of the reasons for the issuance of the stop
memo by the panchayat was that the firm had not obtained fire
NOC. Against the stop memo issued by the Panchayat, the 1 st
respondent filed an appeal before the Panchayat committee, and
respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.13884 of
2025, seeking a direction against the Panchayat to consider the
appeal at the earliest. Since no action was taken by the panchayat
in that appeal, despite a direction by this Court as per the order
dated 29.04.2025 in that writ petition, respondents 1 and 2 filed
a contempt case as COC No.1341 of 2025. When the contempt
2025:KER:81789
case came up for consideration on 13.06.2025, the panchayat
passed the order confirming the stop memo. Respondents 1 and
2 challenged the decision of the panchayat committee before the
Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions,
Thiruvananthapuram and by the order dated 24.06.2025, the
Tribunal stayed the order passed by the panchayat committee.
Meanwhile, in the writ petition filed as W.P.(C)No.2356 of 2025 by
the appellant against the 2nd respondent firm, this Court passed
an interim order restraining the firm from operating further. But
later, the said interim order was vacated by Ext.P10 order dated
30.06.2025. In I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed by the 1st respondent under
Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Arbitral
Tribunal passed Ext.P11 order dated 01.07.2025 restraining the
4th respondent in the writ petition from interfering with the
management, administration and functioning of the partnership
firm. The said order was passed after hearing the 4th respondent
in the writ petition.
5. In view of Ext.P11 order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal,
2025:KER:81789
though the request in I.A.No.4 of 2025 was to direct the District
Fire Officer to reconsider Ext.P7 application for issuance of fire
NOC, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order
directing the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions,
Thiruvananthapuram to consider R.P.No.44 of 2025 filed by the
respondents 1 and 2 against the cancellation of licence without
insisting for the fire NOC.
6. It is trite that an intra-court appeal against an interim
order is entertainable only if the order impugned is one
substantially affecting or touching upon the substantial right or
liabilities of the parties or which are matters of moment and cause
substantial prejudice to the parties.
7. On the question of maintainability of a writ appeal under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against an interim
order passed by a learned Single Judge during the pendency of
the writ petition, the Larger Bench in K.S. Das v. State of Kerala
[1992 (2) KLT 358] held that the word 'order' in Section 5(i) of
the Act includes, apart from other orders, orders passed by the
2025:KER:81789
High Court in miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petitions
provided the orders are to be in force pending the writ petition.
An appeal would lie against such orders only if the orders
substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or
liabilities of the parties or are matters of moment and cause
substantial prejudice to the parties. The nature of the 'order'
appealable belongs to the category of 'intermediate orders'
referred to by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of
Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551]. The word 'order' is not
confined to 'final order' which disposes of the writ petition. The
'orders' should not however, be ad-interim orders in force pending
the miscellaneous petition or orders merely of a procedural nature.
8. In Thomas P.T. and another v. Bijo Thomas and
others [2021 (6) KLT 196], a Division Bench of this Court
noticed that the view that was upheld by the Larger Bench in K.S.
Das [1992 (2) KLT 358] was that even though an appeal could
be filed against an interlocutory order passed in a writ petition, in
order to be qualified for challenge in an appeal, the order shall be
2025:KER:81789
either substantially affecting or touching upon the substantial
rights or liabilities of the parties or which are matters of moment
and cause substantial prejudice to the parties. According to the
Larger Bench, the nature of the order appealable belongs to the
category of intermediate orders referred to by the Apex Court in
Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551]. It was, however, clarified
by the Larger Bench that such orders should not, however, be ad
interim orders or orders merely of a procedural nature.
9. Viewed in the light of the judgments referred supra, we
find no ground to hold that the interim order impugned in this writ
appeal is one substantially affecting or touching upon the
substantial rights of the appellant or causing substantial prejudice
to the appellant. The appellant can raise all his grievances against
the reliefs sought in the writ petition by respondents 1 and 2
before the learned Single Judge. Similarly, he can raise his
objections against Ext.P7 application for the issuance of fire NOC
before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by
impleading himself in R.P.No.44 of 2025, if he has any genuine
2025:KER:81789
grievance to raise therein.
10. So also, having considered the pleadings and materials
on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground
to hold that the impugned order is perverse or illegal, which
warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.
In the result, without expressing anything on the legal and
factual contentions raised by the parties in the writ petition, this
writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2025:KER:81789
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
10.04.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13402/2025
