Writ petition challenging a demand notice to remit remitted bid amount. Court held judicial reduction in fees negates conditions for prior government sanction under remission rules. Notice quashed, petitioner declared not liable.
Notice to remit amount quashed; Petitioner declared not liable to remit the remitted sum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015/10TH ASHADHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 25576 of 2013 (V)
PETITIONER:
P.M.HARIDAS, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.P.N.MADHAVAN PILLAI, PANDAPLACKAL, CHIRAKADAVU P O, KANJIRAPALLY, PIN-686507. BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) SRI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE SMT.UMA R.KAMATH SMT.S.SANDHYA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
WP(C).No. 25576 of 2013 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
P1:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 21/4/2009 IN WPC NO 10959/2007 OF THIS COURT.
P2:-TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/APPLICATION DTD 14/8/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE RESPONDENT'S ENDORSEMENT DTD 17/8/2009 THEREUPON.
P3:-TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE AGENDA (KARYAKURIPPU)BEARING FILE NO R61729/2009(1) OF THE RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL WITH THE DECISION NO.6 DTD 9/12/2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 17/8/2013 BEARING NO 1729/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER AND RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 3/9/2013.
P5:-TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 20/9/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS IN PURSUANCE OF EXT P4 DEMAND NOTICE.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S TO JUDGE
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P(c) No.25576 of 2013-V
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging the order Ext.P4 by which he was directed to remit a sum of Rs.3,36,783/-, the bid amount, by way of remission as per Ext.P3 resolution.
2
W.P(c) No.25576 of 2013-V
impression that he will be able to collect fees @ Rs.15/-, he had to suffer considerable loss, as far as the bid amount is concerned with respect to the amount he could collect from the buses.
W.P(c) No.25576 of 2013-V 3
that the notice was issued on account of the audit objection raised by the Local Fund Audit saying that the Government's sanction was necessary for remission of the bid amount. The objection was to the effect that the deduction was in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipality (Grant of Remission of Kists to Lessees, Licensees and Contractors) Rules, 1998, according to which, remission exceeding Rs.10,000/- can be granted only with the approval of the Government. The Municipality stated that the petitioner has not complied with Rule 5 and the remission granted was contrary to proviso to Rule 4, without getting approval from the Government.
“4. Grant of remission of kist:-- If any loss occurs to a lessee, licensee or contractor, not because of his fault but because of his unableness to enjoy or utilise the property, the right conferred under the contract, for
4
W.P(c) No.25576 of 2013-V
reasons unexpected and beyond human control such as closing down of institutions due to natural calamity or epidemic and unableness to collect the profits, which he had agreed to collect, from the crop bearing trees due to their uprooting by storm and torrential rain, remission of kist proportionate to the actual loss suffered may be granted in accordance with the decision of the council:
Provided that prior sanction of the Government shall be obtained in each case where the granting of remission exceeds ten thousand rupees.
Rule 4 provides for the procedure to be adopted in the event of loss being caused to a lessee, licensee or contractor not because of his fault but because of his inability to enjoy or utilise the property, the right conferred under the contract for reasons unexpected and beyond human control such as closing down of institutions etc. It is under these circumstances, that the Rule requires Government's sanction where the grant of remission exceeds Rs.10,000/-. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this case the loss was caused to the petitioner only because of the intervention of this Court by way
5
W.P(c) No.25576 of 2013-V
of Ext.P1 judgment in which the rate per vehicle was fixed at Rs.12.50 per day as against the notification for auction in which the rate prescribed was Rs.15/- per day. Therefore in effect this is not a condition envisaged under Rule 4. Similarly when this Court directed that the rate has to be fixed at Rs.12.50, the petitioner as well as the Municipality were bound to comply with the same. Loss was caused in the above circumstances. Therefore it was quite reasonable, just and proper on the part of the Municipality to grant remission proportionate to the reduction in the rate fixed per vehicle. Regarding the contention of the Municipality the concerned section is Rule 5. Rule 5 only provides that no application for remission of kist shall be considered by the council unless the conditions of lease, contract or licence are strictly fulfilled and the whole amount as per such conditions has been remitted within the specified time. But in this case the contract was entered into at a time when the Municipality council fixed the rate of fees at Rs.15/-, which was reduced not at the instance of the petitioner or the Municipality. Therefore, the contract itself has undergone a change in view of Ext.P1 judgment. In the above circumstances, the remission granted by the Municipality was proper and in the circumstances
6
W.P(c) No.25576 of 2013-V
of the case prior sanction from the Government as stipulated in the proviso to Rule 4 was not required. The audit objection raised in the above circumstances also will not lie. The notice Ext.P4 will stand quashed. It is declared that petitioner is not liable to remit any amount towards the remission already granted.
Accordingly this Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)
rtr/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the remission of bid amount granted by the Municipality after a court-ficed reduction in fees was proper without prior government sanction.
Whether the Local Fund Audit objection regarding non-compliance with remission rules lies in cases where contractual rates are reduced by judicial intervention.
P.M. Haridas
Kottayam Municipality
P.V. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
