Remanded

Mathrubhoomi Kochi Edition Employees Co-Op.Society LTD.NO.E204 v. the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam

Kerala HC15 Mar 2022WP(C)/14978/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of chitty security deposits. It directed the District Registrar to consider the petition expeditiously after a hearing, acknowledging the loss of documents due to termites.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit representation; District Registrar to decide the security deposit refund request within one month after hearing.

Mathrubhoomi Kochi Edition Employees Co-Op.Society… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 14978 OF 2012

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

MATHRUBHOOMI KOCHI EDITION EMPLOYEES CO-
OP.SOCIETY LTD.NO.E204
KALOOR KOCHI-17 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY A.S RAJENDRAN

¶6

BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR ERNAKULAM KOCHI-11

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRARGENERAL OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR ERNAKULAM KOCHI-11

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

-2-

¶14

W.P.(C). No. 14978 of 2012

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.14978 of 2012

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶20

“ A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside ExhibitsP-4 and P-6.

¶21

B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondents to release security deposits evindenced by Exhibits P-1 and P-2 receipts to the petitioner.

¶22

C) Issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.” (Sic)

¶23

The petitioner Society conducted two chitties in the

¶24

year 1995, for which Exts.P1 and P2 deposits were given as security as envisaged in Section 15 of the Kerala Chitties Act.

¶25

According to the petitioner, the chitties were terminated in the

¶26

year 1999 and all the formalities were complied with. However, the security amounts were not returned. When the

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 14978 of 2012

¶28

-3-

¶29

petitioner made Ext.P.3 request for returning the amount, the 1^st respondent Sub Registrar Sought audited balance sheets. It is the case of the petitioner that since the documents relating to chitties were eaten by termites, and hence the petitioner sought the intervention of the 2^nd respondent. But the 2^nd respondent rejected the same as per Ext.P6 holding that the procedure under Rule 65 of the Kerala Chitties rules require submission of audited balance sheets. The petitioner contended that as per Section 15 of the Act and Rule 65 of the Rules, what is required is the subjective satisfaction of the Registrar. Therefore, it is submitted that Exts.P4 and P6 are unsustainable.

¶30

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

¶31

Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶32

The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The counsel also takes me through Ext.P4 which is a proceeding issued by the Sub

¶33

-4-

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 14978 of 2012

¶35

Registrar, Ernakulam to the President of the Petitioner Society.

¶36

The Government Pleader submitted that as per Rule

¶37

65 of the Kerala Citties Rules, 1975, for releasing the security deposit, the Society has to produce chitty minutes and the balance sheet duly audited.

¶38

This Court considered the contentions of the

¶39

petitioner and the respondents.

¶40

On a perusal of Ext.P4 would show that the petitioner submitted the minutes upto 29.01.1999 and the first balance sheet audited upto 14.10.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents were eaten by termites. Therefore, they are not in a position to produce the same. Of course, there must be some document before the 2^nd respondent, if really the petitioner had submitted the balance sheet and other documents, as evident from Ext.P4. The petitioner can produce all the available documents before the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd

¶41

-5-

¶42

W.P.(C). No. 14978 of 2012

¶43

respondent, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also perusing the available documents with the 2^nd respondents, will decide the same, in accordance to law.

¶44

It is true that the Government Pleader submitted that the chitty security deposit can be released only when the Chitty Registrar satisfy himself that the claims of all subscribers who have demanded payment have been fully satisfied. It is also submitted that, in respect of non prized defaulted subscribers, the amount due to them has to be deposited in separate accounts in the approved bank, by the forman and also to be published in the Gazette that no amount is due to any of the subscribers and to the Government. Admittedly, the Chitty is already over on 16.03.1999. There is absolutely no complaints or allegation from any subscribers even now. The same also will be taken into consideration by the 2^nd respondent.

¶45

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following

¶46

-6-

¶47

W.P.(C). No. 14978 of 2012

¶48

manner:

¶49

The petitioner will submit a representation narrating the factual situation with a request to get the security deposit made as evident by Exts.P1 and P2 to the 2^nd respondent.

¶50

The 2^nd respondent will consider the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, based on the documents produced by the petitioner and also based on the documents available in the office of the 2^nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶51

sd/-

¶52

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶53

das

¶54

-7-

¶55

W.P.(C). No. 14978 of 2012

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14978/2012

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT
DATED 12/11/1995 FOR RS.25,000/-
Exhibit P2FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED 12/1/1995
FOR RS.10,000/-
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
15/6/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 4/7/2011
RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
9/7/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
15/11/2011 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER

Mathrubhoomi Kochi Edition Employees Co-Op.Society LTD.NO.E204 v. the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathrubhoomi Kochi Edition Employees Co-Op.Society LTD.NO.E204 v. the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam

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

Valsamma Mathew Vs Beena

Thomas Joseph Kalassery Vs State of Kerala

Preetha.P.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Bhaskaran Vs Union of India

L.Ushadevi, Vs State of Kerala

Lillykutty Augustine, Vs Mary P. Joseph