Disposed

Rajeesh.K.K, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2023WP(C)/2028/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging demand notices for hoarding license fees, the Court allowed the petitioner to pay the balance amount in six equal monthly installments following a concession of Rs. 3 lakhs upfront, leaving the underlying dispute between parties open for appropriate forum without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to pay Rs. 3 lakhs within one month and balance amount in six equal monthly installments. Liberty to 1st respondent to recover in lump sum on default.

Rajeesh.K.K, Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 20TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2028 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJEESH.K.K, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, KAIKKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O.VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. SECRETARY TO FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶10

2 THE THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT670101.

¶11

3 THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670101.

¶12

4 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, VADAKARA TALUK, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-05.

¶13

5 K.P RAJAN, S/O.KANARAN, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, NADAKUTHAZHA, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 05.

¶14

6 RAJESH KUAR K.P, S/O.K.P.RAJAN, MANAGING PARTNER, MEDIA 360, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM- 682019. BY ADVS. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.SANTHARAM.P SMT.REKHA ARAVIND SRI.PAUL P. ABRAHAM SMT.AMRUTHA RAJ

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C)No.2028 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2022

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

I) a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P6 demand notice dated 02.02.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent, Ext. P10 demand notice issued under the RR Act by the 4^th respondent dated 13.06.2018 and Ext.P11 communication issued by the 1st respondent dated 21.12.2018;

¶22

ii) Declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the licence fee of the hoarding for the period from 11.06.2015 to 10.06.2018 and the 5^th and 6^th respondents are liable to pay the licence fee to the 2^nd respondent;

¶23

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

¶24

According to the petitioner, petitioner is one of the partners of an advertising company namely M/s.ANRR ‘Outdoor Media’ Vadakara having its place of business at Door No.317/A, Ayirodi buildings Vatakara. The firm had obtained the right to erect a hoarding on the right side top

¶25

W.P.(C)No.2028 of 2019

¶26

¶27

of the municipal shopping complex owned by the Thalassery municipality-2^nd respondent for three years from 11.06.2015 for a license fee of Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. According to the petitioner the 5^th respondent namely K.P Rajan, was exclusively using and in possession of the hoarding along with his son Rajesh Kumar K.P-6^th respondent who is also the managing partner of the another advertisement firm namely ‘Media 360’ at Vyttila, Ernakulam. It is also the case of the petitioner that three partners including the 5^th respondent, who was the managing partner retired from the partnership as per Ext.P2 document dated 30.06.2016 whereby the retiring partners had taken over 44 hoardings including the hoarding included in the Ext.P3 agreement. Since the 5^th respondent defaulted on payment of license fee, Ext.P3 agreement was executed which would show that he was in possession from 11.06.2015, and agreed to pay the license fee from that date onwards.

¶28

W.P.(C)No.2028 of 2019

¶29

¶30

The case projected by the petitioner is that the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents namely, the Thalassery municipality

¶31

and its secretary were aware that the petitioner has no interest in the hoarding from 11.06.2015 onwards and the liability to pay the license fees is on the 5^th and 6^th respondents. It seems the 5^th respondent transferred his right to the 6^th respondent and an application was submitted to change the licence to his name. According to the petitioner the 6^th respondent was paying the licence fee as admitted in Ext.P8 notice but he defaulted and consequent to which the secretary of the Municipality has issued a demand directing the petitioner to pay the amount since the licence was taken in the name of the petitioner. Any how, the demand raised by the Secretary of the Municipality has finally culminated in Ext.P10 Revenue Recovery notice, issued under Section 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act,1968; whereby the petitioner was demanded to pay an amount of Rs.12,78,230/- from 11.06.2015 along with interest and other charges. It is thus challenging the

¶32

W.P.(C)No.2028 of 2019

¶33

¶34

legality and correctness of Ext.P10 and other proceedings the writ petition is filed. Detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 5^th and 6^th respondents refuting the allegations and the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Apparently, the agreement executed by and between the parties is admitted. However, it is submitted that since the licence was in the name of the petitioner, petitioner was duty bound to pay the licence fee to the Municipality. Anyhow, adjudication or detailed deliberation of the matter is not required, since, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted he is prepared to pay the licence fee as is claimed in Ext.P10 demand along with other charges if reasonable installments is granted to the petitioner.

¶35

Today morning when the matter was taken up, this Court suggested the petitioner to initially pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within one month, and the issue with respect to payment of the balance amount in installments can be considered. Now, when the matter is taken up the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

¶36

W.P.(C)No.2028 of 2019

¶37

¶38

prepared to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within one month from today. The said submission is recorded. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner may be provided with ten installments to pay the balance amount. However, the said submission is stoutly opposed by the learned Standing counsel for the Thalassery Municipality. Taking into consideration the adverse economic situations prevailing in the community and since the petitioner has conceded the demands raised against the petitioner and submitted that the amount would be paid in installments, I think it is only appropriate that reasonable installments are granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is granted six installments to pay the balance amount minus the three lakhs agreed to be paid within one month from today; which is ordered accordingly.

¶39

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make the balance payments in six equal monthly installments starting from the 6th March 2023, and the corresponding date of the succeeding months. I make it

¶40

W.P.(C)No.2028 of 2019

¶41

¶42

clear that if any one of the installments is defaulted by the petitioner the secretary of the Municipality shall be liberty to proceed in accordance with law and recover the amount from the petitioner in lump. It is also made clear that the dispute by and between the petitioner and the 5^th and 6^th respondents are all left open to be agitated before an appropriate forum or Court. I also make it clear that the observations, findings and directions contained above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter or rival interest of the parties.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C)No.2028 of 2019

¶47

¶48

¶49

PETITION	ER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT OBTAINED 13.11.2018.	DECISION OF THE 3RD UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED
EXHIBIT	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE 30.06.2016.	RETIREMENT DEED DATED
EXHIBIT	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARY DATED 25.02.	AGREEMENT ATTESTED BY A 2017.
EXHIBIT	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE BETWEEN THE 5TH RES RESPONDENT.	AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO PONDENT AND THE 6TH
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NO RESPONDENT OBTAINED	TE FILE OF THE 2ND UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE 3RD RESPONDENT	DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY DATED 02.02.2018.
EXHIBIT	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE PE RESPONDENT.	REPLY DATED 20.02.2018 TITIONER TO THE 3RD
EXHIBIT	P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE 28.03.2018 ISSUED O RESPONDENT.	LAWYER NOTICE DATED N BEHALF OF THE 6TH
EXHIBIT	P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE 04.06.2018.	REPLY NOTICE DATED
EXHIBIT	P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ATTACHMEN	DEMAND NOTICE ALONG WITH T DATED 13.06.2018.
EXHIBIT	P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATE	COMMUNICATION FROM THE D 21.12.2018.

Rajeesh.K.K, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeesh.K.K, v. the 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

Bindu Satish Vs the Karthikappally Grama Panchayat

Shajahan Vs the Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Abdul Kareem Vs the Perinthalmanna Municipality

M. Krishnankutty Vs State of Kerala

Ajith C.Nair Vs State of Kerala

Geevarghese Mathew Vs State of Kerala