Allowed

Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2021WP(C)/2536/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the arbitrary and exorbitant fees prescribed under KPFA Rules, 2007 and a Government Order, the Court allowed the petition by following its own earlier judgment in Palghat Chamber of Commerce v. State of Kerala.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed in tune with judgment in Palghat Chamber of Commerce v. State of Kerala.

Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 2536 OF 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 2536 OF 2011

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI CHERTHALA UNIT, HAVING REG.NO.262/81, CHERTHALA,, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT G.JAYAKUMAR,, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, AGED 45 YEARS.

¶10

2 E.J.THOMAS SO.E.M.JOHN AGED 54 YEARS, GENERAL SECRETARY,, KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI,, CHERTHALA UNIT, CHERTHALA. BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JACKSON MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001

¶13

2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001

¶14

3 THE CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNCIPAL OFFICE,, CHERTHALA. 688524 BY ADVS. J.OM PRAKASH SRI.JOBY CYRIAC

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 2536 OF 2011

¶19

¶20

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶21

W.P.(C.) No. 2536 of 2011

¶22

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2021

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶25

“A). A writ declaring that the fee prescribed to the schedule to Exhibit P3 is arbitrary, exorbitant and highly disproportionate to the service rendered and hence one liable to be struck down.

¶26

B). A writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring that schedule to Exhibit P3 are in the nature of imposition of tax and ultravires to the powers of the 1st respondent and hence illegal unconstitutional and unenforceable.

¶27

C). A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction holding that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to heavy tax/fees under the PFA Act other than the pre-existing fees before Exhibit P3.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 2536 OF 2011

¶29

¶30

D). A writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P4 Government order dated 19-01-2009 issued by the 1st respondent.

¶31

E). A writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from implementing or enforcing the schedules of Exhibit P3 rules and Exhibit P4 Government order and/or from taking coercive measures for non compliance thereof in any manner.

¶32

F) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.“

¶33

When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the matter is covered by judgment dated 10.3.2017 in W.P.(C.) No.12727/2007 ( Palghat Chamber of Commerce v. State of Kerala [2017 (2) KLT 696]). The counsel for the petitioner submitted that some benefit is given in the concluding paragraph of the above judgment and that benefit may be given to the petitioner. I think the same can be extended to the petitioner also.

¶34

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed, in tune with the

¶35

WP(C) NO. 2536 OF 2011

¶36

¶37

judgment dated 10.3.2017 in W.P.(C.) No. 12727/2007

¶38

( Palghat Chamber of Commerce v. State of Kerala [2017

¶39

(2) KLT 696]).

¶40

SD/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶41

SKS

¶42

WP(C) NO. 2536 OF 2011

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 9.1.2011 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KPFA RULES, 1957 EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KPFA RULES, 2007 EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.15/2008/H&FWD DATED 9.1.2009 EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 27.7.2009 EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5.4.2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 11502/2010 EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.5.2010 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO. 14461/2010 EXT.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6.1.2011

¶47

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.K.Paulose Kutty Vs the Reserve Bank of India

M/S. Galaxy Homes Private Limited, Vs State of Kerala

Veekay Tea Company Private Ltd. Vs Union of India

Gcvd Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

Vysian Hamza Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Mohammed Ali Vs State of Kerala