Dismissed

Vinesh V.T v. the Secretary

Kerala HC15 Dec 2021WP(C)/27126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking refund of rent paid for commercial leased premises. The court held the matter involves disputes resolvable only under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. The writ was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to avail remedy under Section 124 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act.

Vinesh V.T Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

W.P.(C)NO.27126 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

VINESH V.T., S/O. VENDOOR THANKAPPAN, VENDOOR (HO), CHITTISSERY, THRISSUR-680301.

¶10

BY ADVS. N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) S.SUJIN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR-680001.

¶13

2 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR-680001.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI K.P. SUDHEER - STANDING COUNSEL, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)NO.27126 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amounts received by the respondents under different heads pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement dated 23.09.2015, without deducting the rent for the period from 17.03.2020 till July 2020 as demanded in Ext.P5 letter dated 16.09.2020.

¶22

Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner along with his partners have taken six rooms in the shopping complex of the Cochin Devaswom Board at Pallithana on the strength of an agreement dated 23.09.2015. The document marked as Ext.P6 is a lawyer notice dated 22.10.2020 issued to the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, under Section 124 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.

¶23

On 30.11.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom

¶24

W.P.(C)NO.27126 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

Board was directed to get instructions.

¶27

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

¶28

and also the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board.

¶29

The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to seek the aforesaid relief in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

There are certain disputes between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioner has already issued Ext.P6 lawyer notice to the 1^st respondent Secretary of Cochin Devaswom Board under Section 124 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. It is for the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the statute, for redressal of his grievance. Such disputes cannot be decided in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable for the aforesaid reason; however without

¶32

W.P.(C)NO.27126 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take further course in terms of Ext.P6 lawyer notice.

¶35

The legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner

¶36

are left open to be raised before the appropriate forum, at appropriate stage.

¶37

Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶38

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶39

MIN

¶40

W.P.(C)NO.27126 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF W.P.(C)NO.27126 OF 2021

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED DATED 23.9.2015 BY BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT BOARD AND THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HIS PARTNERS IN BUSINESS.

¶45

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ASSURANCE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 23.9.2015 TO THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION.

¶46

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.3.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT BOARD.

¶47

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶48

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶49

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 22.10.2020.

Vinesh V.T v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinesh V.T v. the Secretary

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

Rubil P.M Vs Seena

M.P.Manikantan, Vs the Malabar Devaswom Board

Mini Rajendran, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Vijayakumar Vs the Commissioner

Kunnumbrath Beevi Vs Neeratti Muhammed Ashraf

Kunnumbrath Beevi Vs Puthanpurayil Hajira