Partly allowed

Mulamthuruthy Grama Panchayat Council v. Satheesh K.K

Kerala HC11 Feb 2020WA/1993/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's order quashing a fine of Rs.3000/- imposed by the Panchayat for operating without a licence and alleged hygiene violations, ruling that the fine is separate from the pending licence fee application.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is partly allowed; the lower court's judgment quashing the Rs.3000/- fine receipt is modified.

Mulamthuruthy Grama Panchayat Council… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.1993 OF 2015

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC 14945/2015 DATED 23-06-2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4:

¶10

1 MULAMTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT COUNCIL MULAMTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MULAMTHURUTHY PO,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 314

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, MULAMTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MULAMTHURUTHY PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 314

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER-RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 5 & 6:

¶14

1 SATHEESH K.K., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O KESHAVAN, KADAMBRA HOUSE, PERUMPILLY PO MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 314

¶15

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶16

3 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,MUSEUM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 042

¶17

4 THANKAMANI.S RESIDING AT MINOA HERITAGE, NGO QUARTERS ROAD,KAKKANAD-682 021

¶18

W.A. No. 1993 OF 2015

¶19

-2-

¶20

5 THE HEALTH INSPECTOR PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE, KEECHERI, ERNAKJULAM DISTRICT 682 315 R1 BY ADV. SATHEESH K.K. (PARTY) R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.GITHESH SR.GP SRI TEK CHAND FOR R2,R3 AND R5

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.A. No. 1993 OF 2015

¶23

-3-

¶24

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2020. JUDGMENT

¶25

S. Manikumar, CJ

¶26

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.06.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 14945 of 2015, by which the writ court allowed the writ petition quashing Ext.P9 holding that the writ petitioner/first respondent is entitled to the relief sought for by him. Challenging Ext.P9 receipt that an amount of Rs.3000/- imposed as fine from the first respondent on the ground that he sold stale food products and that his shop was unclean is erroneous, the aforesaid writ petition has been filed.

¶27

Facts deduced from the material on record are that the first respondent/writ petitioner is conducting an Ice Cream Palour, in the name of 'Appu's Ice Cream Parlour' at Pallithazham, within the limits of the appellant Panchayat. The grievance voiced by the writ petitioner is that eventhough the 5^th respondent accepted the licence

¶28

W.A. No. 1993 OF 2015

¶29

-4-

¶30

application, he did not allow him to remit the licence fee and he delayed consideration of the application. Thereafter, he applied for D & O licence for the year 2015-2016. During the pendency of his application, he was issued with Ext.P8 notice stating that he has no licence from the Panchayat and Ext.P9 imposing a fine of Rs.3000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

Call for the records leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, colourable execise, misuse of official power and unsustainable;

¶32

Call for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable;

¶33

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 3, 4 and 5 to return the fine amount remitted by the petitioner with interest;

¶34

Declare that the fifth respondent has no power to impose fine on the petitioner as evident from Ext.P9.

¶35

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding respondents 3, 4 and 5 to return the alleged belated fee of Rs.500/- collected from the petitioner as per Ext.P10 interest.

¶36

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration,

¶37

W.A. No. 1993 OF 2015

¶38

-5-

¶39

Mr. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant Panchayat, submitted that the fine amount has been collected. Imposition of fine is for the alleged irregularity namely sale of stale products in the ice cream parlour, and for running the shop without licence. Room was also stated to be not hygienic.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant Panchayat submitted that Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and, Factories) Rules/ 1996 r/w Section 255 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 empowers the competent authority to impose fine. In this context, it is profitable to extract the same.

¶41

“26. Penalties for violation of rules.—The. Panchayat shall, for the violators of these rules, impose penalties under section 255 of the Act.”

¶42

“255. Penalties for breach of rules. -In making any rule under this Act, the Government may provide that a breach thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or in case of a continuing breach, with fine, not exceeding fifty rupees for every day during which the breach continues after conviction for the first breach.”

¶43

Even though material on record discloses that the

¶44

W.A. No. 1993 OF 2015

¶45

-6-

¶46

Panchayat Council has convened a joint meeting of the kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy Merchants Association, Traders, Vice President and the Secretary of the Panchayat, and as per the decision taken, licence fee of the first respondent was accepted and agreed to give licence within a few days from the date of receipt of the application, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Panchayat Council passed a resolution withdrawing the fine imposed for the irregularities stated supra. Imposition of fine for irregularities is entirely different from considering the application for grant of licence. It is not the case of the appellant that once the fine amount is paid, the misconduct is deemed to be condoned.

¶47

Placing on record the aforesaid submission, we are of the view that there is no impediment to consider the application for licence, and at the same time, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the view that writ court ought not to have set aside Ext.P9 receipt of fine of

¶48

W.A. No. 1993 OF 2015

¶49

-7-

¶50

Rs.3000/- already received by the appellant Panchayat.

¶51

In the light of the above discussion, we find that the

¶52

decision of the writ court quashing Ext.P9 alone has to be interfered with and accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified to that extent alone.

¶53

In the result, this writ appeal is partly allowed.

¶54

sd/-

¶55

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶56

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶57

SHAJI P. CHALY,

¶58

Mulamthuruthy Grama Panchayat Council v. Satheesh K.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulamthuruthy Grama Panchayat Council v. Satheesh K.K

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

Kurien Eapen Thomas, Vs Sri.a.Shahjahan IAS

Union of India, Vs P.v.Yesoda Amma

C.J.Paulose, Vs Vice Admiral Anil Kumar Chawla

Clifford Crasta Vs State of Kerala

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Sathyaseelan

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs the Secretary