Allowed

M.Asokan v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC3 Jul 2019WP(C)/14461/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his appeal regarding an arm licence renewal due to lack of condonation for delay. The High Court held that delay ought to have been condoned. It quashed the impugned order directing the Land Revenue Commissioner to reconsider the appeal on merits within four months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 quashed; direction to first respondent to reconsider petitioner's appeal on merits within four months.

M.Asokan Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14461 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.ASOKAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. UNNIKUTTY, MUPRA VADAKKE CHERUVIL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE -673 571.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE- 673 020.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE -673 020.

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, TAZHEKODE, KOZHIKODE -673 004.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.RASHMI.K.M, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.14461 of 2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner is a holder of an Arm licence

¶20

issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode. Even though, petitioner preferred an application for renewal, it was not granted and being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority i.e., the Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram along with the delay petition. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the delay condonation petition and consequentially the appeal also. It is thus challenging Ext.P3 order in LR(A)5-2647/18, dated 17.07.2018 by the Appellate Authority, this writ petition is filed.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioner and learned Government Pleader. I am of

¶23

the considered opinion that the delay ought to have

¶24

been condoned by the Appellate Authority and considered the matter on merits. Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 and there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the appeal submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and obtain

¶25

WP(C).No.14461 of 2019

¶26

-3-

¶27

finality at the earliest and at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment after providing a notice of hearing to the petitioner.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

akv

WP(C).No.14461 of 2019

¶34

-4-

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 2.7.2014.

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.2018.

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN LR (A) 5-2647/18 DATED 17.7.2018

¶40

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶41

//TRUE COPY// C.A. TO JUDGE

M.Asokan v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Asokan v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Chand, Vs Union of India

Sangrose Laboratories (P) Ltd., Vs the State of Kerala

Sibi Joseph Vs Sri. Vinay Goi

Suresh Vs Athul Swamyanath

P.N.Govindan Vs Toby Thomas

P.Madhavan Pillai Vs Divisional Railway Manager(Work)