Disposed

Mukesh M.A. v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)

Kerala HC7 Jul 2022WP(C)/364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner, a crematorium leaseholder aggrieved by a demand notice issued without considering his representation, sought a direction for the prompt disposal of his petition and suspension of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd Respondent to consider Ext.P2 and pass orders within one month; all further proceedings under Ext.P1 deferred pending final orders.

Mukesh M.A. Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 364 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MUKESH M.A. AGED 34 YEARS S/O.MUKESH, VILAYIL PUTHENVEEDU, THAZHUTHALA, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM - 691 571. BY ADV P.SIVARAJ

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 001.

¶9

2 KOLLOAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM - 690 001.

¶10

3 SECRETARY KOLLOAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM - 690 001. BY ADV SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 364 OF 2022

¶13

¶14

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶15

------------------------------

¶16

W.P.(C).No. 364 of 2022

¶17

Dated this the 07^th day of July, 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above writ petition is filed with the following

¶20

prayers:

¶21

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same;

¶22

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding and compelling the 3^rd Respondent consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, pending before it, within a stipulated period of time;

¶23

(iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

¶24

(iv) Award costs to the Petitioner from the Respondents.”[SIC]

¶25

The petitioner is a disabled unemployed

¶26

youth aged 34 years. In the year 2019, the petitioner bid in an auction for the right to cremate dead bodies

¶27

WP(C) NO. 364 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

in the crematorium for the period from 2019 April 1^st to 2020 March 31^st at Akoline owned by the 1^st respondent Corporation. At the time of auction, the construction work of the crematorium was under progress and it was expected completion before April 2019. But the construction was not completed as expected by the authorities and therefore, the functioning of the crematorium started only on 26.06.2019. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that there is monitory loss to the petitioner. Apart from that, it is also contended that the 1^st day itself the furnace in the crematorium got damaged due to electrical defect. Even though the petitioner requested several times, the repair work was not carried out. Now the petitioner is requested to pay an exorbitant amount of Rs.96,259/- as per Ext.P1 demand notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation. Without considering Ext.P2, the Corporation is proceeding with Ext.P1 demand notice,

¶30

WP(C) NO. 364 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

is the contention of the petitioner.

¶33

Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. I also heard the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the 1^st respondent.

¶34

The main grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering Ext.P2 representation, the demand based on Ext.P1 is continuing by the respondents. The petitioner has got a grievance that the crematorium was not functioning during most of the agreement period. These are matterS to be considered by the Corporation. Admittedly, Ext.P2 is pending before the Corporation. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders in it. Till final orders are passed all further proceedings consequent to Ext.P1 can be kept in abeyance.

¶35

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 364 OF 2022

¶38

i. There will be a direction to the 3^rd

¶39

respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

ii. Till final orders are passed in Ext.P2, all

¶41

further proceedings consequent to Ext.P1 are deferred.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

¶46

WP(C) NO. 364 OF 2022

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 364/2022

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY	OF DEMAND NOTICE	DATED
	29/01/2021	ISSUED BY THE	1ST
	RESPONDENT	TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY	OF REPRESENTATION	DATED
	19/10/2021	SUBMITTED BY	THE
	PETITIONER	BEFORE THE	3RD
	RESPONDENT.

¶51

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

PA TO JUDGE

Mukesh M.A. v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh M.A. v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)

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

Pauly Augustin Vs the Secretary, Parakkadavu Grama Panchayath

Sherly S.V Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Mathew, Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Ranjini Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality

Anandavalliamma Vs State of Kerala

Ummayya Annangadan Vs the Malappuram Municipality