Allowed

Jomey Chandran v. Corporation of Kochi

Kerala HC27 Nov 2019WP(C)/20920/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a non-speaking order revising shop rent, alleging lack of hearing and reasoning. The Court set aside the order to compel the Secretary to reconsider the matter following due procedure within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order (Ext.P9) set aside. Secretary directed to hear petitioner and pass a final order within one month. Recovery action deferred until new order.

Jomey Chandran Vs Corporation of Kochi — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.20920 OF 2019(L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOMEY CHANDRAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, ROOM NO.9, VYTTILA SHOPPING COMPLEX, VYTTILA, RESIDING AT CHANDRU, 43/2518, ST.VINCENT PAUL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE P.B.NO.1016, KOCHI-682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, P.B.NO.1016, KOCHI-682011.

¶12

3 SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, P.B.NO.1016, KOCHI-682011. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, P.B.NO.1016, KOCHI-682011

¶13

4 STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, P.B.NO.1016, KOCHI-682011, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI.

¶14

R1-4 BY SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.20920 OF 2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 27th day of November 2019

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ

¶21

petition impugning Ext.P9 order of the Additional Secretary of the Cochin Corporation, as per which, his application, to reconsider an earlier order passed by the Corporation revising the rent

¶22

for the shop room occupied by him at Vyttila, was rejected.

¶23

According to the learned Senior Counsel - Sri.Sugunapalan, instructed by

¶24

Sri.S.Sujin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P9 is a non-speaking order and it does not say as to why the Additional Secretary has taken

¶25

the decision therein. The learned Senior Counsel

¶26

says that, in addition to the above, Ext.P9 is

¶27

WP(C).No.20920 OF 2019 -3-

¶28

vitiated also because the said order has been

¶29

taken merely on the dictation of the Council of the Municipality, during which process also the petitioner had not been heard. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be set aside and the Secretary of the Corporation be directed to reconsider the matter, taking note of all the applicable judgments and relevant inputs.

¶30

Sri.K.Anand, the learned Standing

¶31

Counsel for the Cochin Corporation submits that

¶32

if the petitioner only wants Ext.P9 be reconsidered, the Secretary will not stand in such way; but that this Court may not make any affirmative declaration on the entitlement of the petitioner and leave it to the said Authority to take a final decision in terms of law, after following due procedure.

¶33

Taking note of the afore submissions

¶34

and since, p rima facie , I cannot find favour with

¶35

WP(C).No.20920 OF 2019

¶36

-4-

¶37

Ext.P9 for the reasons that have been afore

¶38

contended by Sri.Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel, I order this writ petition and set aside the said order, not because I find against it conclusively, but so as to pave way for a fresh

¶39

consideration of all aspects by the Secretary of the Cochin Corporation.

¶40

Resultantly, the Secretary of the

¶41

Corporation will hear the petitioner and take a fresh decision, leading to a final order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and will communicate the resultant order to the petitioner immediately thereafter.

¶42

Needless to say, until such time as the

¶43

afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all further

¶44

action to recover the amounts from the

¶45

petitioner, based on demand made by the

¶46

WP(C).No.20920 OF 2019

¶47

-5-

¶48

Corporation, shall stand deferred and will be taken forward only depending upon the decision to be taken by the Secretary in terms of this judgment.

¶49

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

¶54

WP(C).No.20920 OF 2019

¶55

-6-

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DEED DATED 29.06.2018 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶59

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN TO SHOW THAT PETITIONER'S SHOP VIZ PRANAV FASHION JEWELLERY.

¶60

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH PETITIONER'S SHOP FROM SIGHT OF THE ROAD.

¶61

EXHIBIT P4 LIST OF RENT CHARGE OF OTHER OCCUPANTS IN THE SHOPPING COMPLEX.

¶62

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 17.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.

¶63

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 04.04.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.

¶64

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.

¶65

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.242/2019.

¶66

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MOP.3A/8818/94 DATED 16.3.2019.

¶67

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Jomey Chandran v. Corporation of Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jomey Chandran v. Corporation of Kochi

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

K.Ramanathan Vs the District Collector, Kasaragod

M.B Sathi Vs the District Collector

Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs the Secretary, Valappad Grama Panchayath

P.Shadhi Vs District Collector

American Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

M.Nassar Vs the Secretary