Allowed

Kerala Hindu Cheramar Sangham v. the District Registrar (General)

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023WP(C)/3666/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the District Registrar violated statutory duties by not taking a final decision on the petitioner's renewal application solely due to a third party's objection. The writ petition was allowed to set aside the order and direct the registrar to decide expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Ext.P8 set aside; direction to respondent to take final decision within three months.

Kerala Hindu Cheramar Sangham Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA,

¶4

1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3666 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KERALA HINDU CHERAMAR SANGHAM
(REG NO. K.296/1984) HEAD OFFICE, KURICHY,
KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
RAMABHAYI KUTTAPPAN, ANJANIKKAL HOUSE,
KAVUNGUMPRAYAR PO, PURAMATTOM THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689543
BY ADVS.
ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA
ANIL D.KARTHA
SURESH G.
SHARATH ELDO PHILIP
SREEKUMAR G.
ANANTHASANKAR A. KARTHA

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
OFFICE OF THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REGISTRAR
(GENERAL) COLLECTORATE PO, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686002
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

..2..

WPC 3666/23

JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 order of the respondent, whereby, the request made by them for renewal of their registration, has been rejected on the ground that there is an objection raised by a person by name K.R.Arjunan. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P8 is improper because, merely since a complaint has been received, the respondent appears to have abdicated his statutory duties; and thus prays that it be set aside, with a consequential direction issued to him to reconsider the matter in terms of law.

¶15

Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, in response to the afore submissions of Sri.Ananthakrishnan A.Kartha – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, as evident from Ext.P8, the respondent has been incapacitated from continuing with further action on the application of the petitioner because of the complaint received by the aforementioned K.R.Arjunan. He pointed out that said person has not been arrayed as a respondent in this case; and therefore, argued that this writ

¶16

..3..

¶17

WPC 3666/23

¶18

petition is not maintainable. As an alternative submission, the learned Government Pleader added that, if this Court is so inclined, the respondent can certainly hear both sides again and take a final decision, either as to allow the application of the petitioner, or reject it in terms of law. He submitted that, he is making this submission because, in Ext.P8, the respondent had thought it better to leave the parties to their alternative remedies, which they may have before other competent forums.

¶19

When I examine Ext.P8, which is the order impugned, as rightly argued by Sri.Ananthakrishnan A.Kartha, the respondent - Registrar has not taken a decision on the petitioner’s application, but has relegated them to a Civil Court. This was done, solely because there was a complaint preferred by the aforementioned person, who claims to be belonging to the opposing faction. There can be no doubt that under the statutory Scheme, the respondent is to take a final decision on every application, one way or the other. If there are reasons why the renewal or registration cannot be granted, it should be specifically stated in the resultant order, so that it

¶20

WPC 3666/23 ..4..

¶21

can be then challenged, or dealt with by the petitioner in such manner as is available to him in law. Unfortunately, by issuing Ext.P8, the remedy of the petitioner has been virtually impeded by the respondent.

¶22

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential direction to the respondent to take a final decision on the application of the petitioners, after hearing them, as also the objectors; thus culminating in an appropriate order as per the statutory Scheme, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶23

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR

..5..

WPC 3666/23

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3666/2023

¶30

`PETITION`	`ER`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`JUDGMENT DATED 11-`
		`04-2008 IN OS NO.` `MUNSIFF'S COURT, C`	`243/2006 BY THE` `HANGANACHERRY`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `REGISTERED AS 543/` `CHANGANACHERRY SRO`	`DEED OF PARTITION` `I/2017 WITH THE`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `1232/2019 DATED 13` `THE RESPONDENT`	`LETTER NO. S1-` `-03-2020 ISSUED BY`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 18-03-2020 I` `PETITIONER TO THE`	`LETTER NO. 5/20` `SSUED BY THE` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `S1-1232/2019 DATED` `BY THE RESPONDENT`	`LETTER NUMBERED AS` `23-03-2020 ISSUED` `TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 03-04-2020 I` `PETITIONER TO THE`	`LETTER NO. 12/20` `SSUED BY THE` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `S1-2763/2019 DATED` `BY THE RESPONDENT`	`LETTER BEARING NO.` `21-12-2020 ISSUED` `TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`A TRUE COY OF THE` `2763/2019 DATED 27`	`LETTER NO. AS S1-` `-01-2021 ISSUED BY`
		`THE RESPONDENT TO`	`THE PETITIONER`

Kerala Hindu Cheramar Sangham v. the District Registrar (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Hindu Cheramar Sangham v. the District Registrar (General)

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

Perfect Engineers and Contractors, Vs State of Kerala

Asif Azad Vs Haja Maheen

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the Chief Controller of Explosives

M/S K v Joseph and Sons Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Poovar Muslim Jama-Ath Committee Vs State of Kerala

Abdussamad T. Vs the Secretary, Kainagari Sudhajala Vitharana Scheme Level Committee