Allowed

Robert Thampi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2023WP(C)/1029/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that despite the procedural lapse of unfiled challan for renewal, the petitioner's registration period from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 shall be treated as valid because the petitioner lacked complicity in the alleged office forgery and bona fide reliance on the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the renewal of registration from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 shall be treated as valid for actions taken by the petitioner.

Robert Thampi Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ROBERT THAMPI
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. T. THAMPI, RESIDING AT SHOBHI NIVAS,
VALIYARATHALA, NARUVAMMOODU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020
BY ADVS.
M.H.ASIF ALI
SRI.A.K.ARUN CHANDRAN

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶9

2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033

¶10

3 REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, SOUTHERN REGION, KOLLAM, LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI STADIUM BUILDING, KOLLAM-691 001 BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SRI.APPU.P.S-GP

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2021

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2023

¶16

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶17

i Call for the records leading to Ext P5 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

¶18

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to renew the registration of the petitioner as Supervisor B under the Department of Urban Affairs from 20.08.18 till 19.08.22 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶19

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Ext P2 renewal of license of the petitioner as Supervisor B shall be treated as valid for all purposes.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered Supervisor- B under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. It is submitted that he had submitted an application for registration as Supervisor-B which was considered and certificate was issued to him on 20.08.2011. The

¶22

WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

validity of the period of registration having expired, he had submitted an application for renewal of the registration for a period of four years from 20.08.2014 and the renewal from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 was endorsed on his certificate of registration by the 3^rd respondent. When his certificate of registration was due to expire on 19.08.2018, he made an application for renewal of the registration by paying challan and making a request for the same as provided in Rule 150(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Ext.P3 is the challan. However, it is stated that on the ground that Ext.P2 renewal from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 was not effected by the 3^rd respondent and was a result of a forgery committed by the employees in the office of the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent refused to grant the renewal.

¶25

The petitioner therefore, approached this Court filing W.P.(C ) No. 14739/2019 in which a counter affidavit was placed on record by the learned Government Pleader stating that the challan fee for renewal of license had been entrusted to an office attendant in the office of the 2^nd respondent and a crime had been registered against office attendants Anil Ahammad, part time sweeper P.Anil Kumar with regard to fake licence issued to the parties without the

¶26

WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

permission of the 3^rd respondent. It is stated that the petitioner’s licence renewal for the period from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 was fake and therefore, no benefit could accrue to the petitioner from the said renewal.

¶29

Having considered the contentions of the petitioner that he was absolutely unaware of the forgery and that he had absolutely no connection with the same, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent to consider the contentions of the petitioner and his assertions that he is not guilty or responsible for any forgeries and that since he is a licensed Supervisor his request for further renewal was directed to be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner was heard in person by the 3^rd respondent and Ext.P5 order was issued on 29.12.2019. It was found that the application for renewal under the Building Rules, 1999 ought to have been filed as provided in the Rules and the fees ought to have been paid by challan in the Treasury. However, it was found that the petitioner who had appeared in person on 01.10.2018 had stated that he had given the application for renewal along with the fee for the same to the office attendant of the 3^rd respondent’s office. It was, therefore, found that in the absence of a proper application having been filed

¶30

WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

by the petitioner, with evidence of the fee being paid as provided, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the renewal from 19.08.2018. For the said reasons, his request for further renewal was also rejected.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of Ext.P5 would go to show that there is no allegation of any complicity on the part of the petitioner with regard to the forgery carried out of by the employees of the 3^rd respondent’s office. It is also clear that there is no crime registered against the petitioner and the crime stands registered only against the concerned employees. It is therefore contended that the action of the respondents in finding that the renewal from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 was ineffective would lead to serious consequence in as much as the petitioner who was under the bonafide impression that he is a registered Supervisor-B had signed several plans for submission before the Municipality and that building permits had been issued on the basis of such certificates or signatures issued by him. It is submitted that in view of the fact that Ext.P5 does not disclose any complicity of the petitioner in the forgery which occurred in Ext.P2, the 3^rd respondent ought to have found that the

¶34

WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

renewal of his registration from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 which was never called into question before any authorities ought to have been found to be proper and valid.

¶37

The learned Government Pleader submits that the Rules specifically provide that an application for renewal has to be made within the period of validity of the licence and has to be supported by the payment of requisite fees. It is submitted that the due procedure for submitting an application with the requisite fee before the 3^rd respondent had not been carried out by the petitioner while applying for the renewal of the registration from August,2014. It is therefore contended that even in the absence of any complicity on the part of the petitioner since there was no valid renewal as per the Rules, the stand taken by the 3^rd respondent in Ext.P5 is perfectly legal and valid.

¶38

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the contention that the petitioner had not properly applied before the 3^rd respondent with evidence of having made the remittance of the fee for renewal of the licence from 20/8/2014 by means known to law is not seriously disputed. However, it is a specific case of the petitioner that he had no complicity in the matter. This aspect is not

¶39

WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2021

¶40

¶41

denied either in Ext.P5 proceedings or in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

¶42

In the above view of the matter and in the peculiar factual circumstances of this case where there is no complicity alleged as against the petitioner and no criminal case filed against him and since the petitioner’s contention that he was made aware of the fraud carried out by the employees of the 3^rd respondent only when he made his further application for renewal, I am of the opinion that, the action of the 3^rd respondent in invalidating the renewal granted from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 is unjustified. This is also in view of the fact that the petitioner contends that he has used his licence which he bonafidely thought was valid and legal for certifying plans with regard to various building permits and in case the invalidation is upheld by this Court it will lead to serious consequences for other unsuspecting applicants for building permits as well.

¶43

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is ordered directing that the renewal of the registration of the petitioner from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 shall be treated as valid for the purpose of the actions taken by him, on the basis of the same. In case the

¶44

WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2021 8

¶45

petitioner submits an application for fresh licence, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, treating the renewal of his registeration from 20.08.2014 to 19.08.2018 as valid, if the petitioner is otherwise qualified.

¶46

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

ska

WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2021

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1029/2021

¶54

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION DT. 20.08.2011 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPODENT.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT OF RENEWAL OF
REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER FROM 20.08.14
TO 19.08.18.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DT. 20.08.18
ISSUED FOR PAYMENT OF RENEWAL FEE.
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 05.11.2019 IN
W.P.C NO. 14739/2019 ON THE FILE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. E-
1810/2019 DT. 29.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.

Robert Thampi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robert Thampi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nicolas P. Dias Vs the Chief Town Planner

Nicolas P. Dias, Vs the State of Kerala

N. Vasavan Vs Smt. Jayasree T.K

Raheema. C.A Vs Vishnu Raj

N.Vijayan Vs Suma.S

Velappan Nair Vs State of Kerala