Allowed

Kalidasa Hotels v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2019WP(C)/19182/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition seeking a refund of excess fees paid by the petitioner for Fire and Rescue services. The Government instituted a retrospective fee revision. The Court held that excess paid under the old rate is not liable for adjustment against future liability. The respondents were directed to refund the excess balance within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents are directed to refund Rs.6,64,233/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Kalidasa Hotels Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.19182 OF 2019(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KALIDASA HOTELS

¶8

N.H.47, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, KALAMASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL) SANU I.R, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN.

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.K.S.SUMITHA SRI.P.M.MUJEEB REHIMAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, HOME DEPARTMENT (F) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2 DIRECTOR GENERAL,

¶13

FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIRE FORCE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

3 DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, GIRI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 020

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.VINOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)No.19182 of 2019

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C)No.19182 of 2019

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner is a company establishing a hotel at Kalamassery. The petitioner was required to obtain an initial site No Objection Certificate from the Fire and Rescue Services Department for obtaining the building permit for the hotel building. They are also required to obtain a final No Objection Certificate from the said department before occupying the hotel. The fee prescribed for the No Objection Certificate was Rs.200/- per square metre of the building, of which one half has to be paid for the initial No Objection Certificate and the remaining has to be paid for the final No Objection Certificate. On that basis, the petitioner has remitted Rs.9,48,900/- and obtained the initial site No Objection Certificate. Later, the Government has revised the fees to Rs.30/- per square metre of the building with retrospective effect. Rs.8,06,566/- paid by the petitioner is, therefore, in excess. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions for refund of the excess fee paid.

¶22

W.P.(C)No.19182 of 2019

¶23

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶25

also the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

The revision of the fee was effected in terms of G.O.(MS)No.185/2015/Home, a copy of which was made available at the time of hearing. Paragraph 4 of the said Government Order reads thus:

¶27

“4. In such circumstance in supercession of the order read as 2^nd & 5^th above, Government hereby revise the fee for NOC to the various categories of buildings as appended herein. Government also order that the fee rate mentioned is for plinth area per m² and 50% of the fees should be remitted while applying for site NOC and balance at the time of applying for final NOC. Minimum amount of fee, for residential and educational buildings for site and final NOC is Rs.15,000/- each and for remaining occupancies is Rs.20,000/-. Government further order that, those who have remitted fee for site NOC as per the rates prescribed in G.O(Ms)No.267/2014/Home dated 23.12.2014 which is more than the revised rate, the excess remitted will be adjusted against the fee for final NOC to the extent possible. The rates will be subject to periodic revision.”

¶28

In terms of the said Government Order, no doubt, the excess paid by the petitioner is liable to be adjusted against the final payment due from the petitioner. But, as far as the petitioner is concerned, their total liability is only Rs.2,84,667/-. Even if the

¶29

balance fee payable is adjusted against the excess, there will

¶30

W.P.(C)No.19182 of 2019

¶31

¶32

be still a further excess of Rs.6,64,233/-. As the Government cannot appropriate the amount, the petitioner is entitled to refund the same.

¶33

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund Rs.6,64,233/- to the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C)No.19182 of 2019

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF FEE OF RS. 71,200/- BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.12.2014.

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF FEE OF RS.8,77,700/- BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.05.2015.

¶42

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT DATED 04.11.2016.

¶43

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ISSUED TO 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.11.2016.

¶44

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 30363/2018 DATED 17.10.18.

¶45

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.11.2018.

¶46

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2018.

¶47

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2018.

¶48

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

PA TO JUDGE

¶51

Kalidasa Hotels v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalidasa Hotels v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V J Babu., Vs Union Bank of India

C.D.Varghese @ C.D.Jolly Vs the District Collector

The Administrator, Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Soopy Vs the Principal Secreary to Government

Raviraj.S Vs Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

K.Saidalavi Vs the Thrikkadeeri Grama Panchayath