Disposed

Laila Lathief, v. Kothamangalam Municipality

Kerala HC6 Jan 2023WP(C)/8618/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging municipal license cancellation and eviction notices were filed by licensees. The court ordered that pending a government challenge, renewal applications be filed and considered by the Municipal Council within three weeks, with prior stay continuation.

What did the court decide?

Directions to file renewal applications within 15 days and consider same within three weeks; continuation of interim stay on eviction notices.

Laila Lathief, Vs Kothamangalam Municipality — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 8618 OF 2012

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 LAILA LATHIEF AGED 47 YEARS

¶10

W/O.ABDUL LATHIEF, AYYARIL HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶11

2 M.P.SUBAIR

¶12

AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.PAREED, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, THANKALAM, KOTHAMANGLAAM-686 691.

¶13

3 RAMLA SYED MUHAMMED

¶14

AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SYED MUHAMMED, KARAYIL HOUSE, PINDIMANA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶15

4 M.M.MYTHEEN

¶16

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MEERAN, MAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶17

5 A.A.BAVA

¶18

AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUNJU, ANCHAERI PULICKAL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶19

6 M.A.ALI AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.ENATHI, MONIKKATTIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶20

7 JAHFAR AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MYTHEEN, MACHINGAL HOUSE, OLAKARA P.O., THIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM-676 306.

¶21

8 P.M.SALIM AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MEERAN, PONNAPPALA HOUSE, ADIVADU, PALLALRIMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶22

9 P.M.ALIYAR AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MEERAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOVALLOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 671.

¶23

10 ADDL. PETITIONER NO.10 IMPLEADED:

¶24

SYED MOHAMMED

¶25

AGED 67 YEARS, SON OF AHAMMED MOIDEEN, PADINJATTUM KARAYIL HOUSE, COMPANYPADY, NELLIKUZHY P.O

¶26

(ADDL. PETITIONER NO.10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD 28.09.2022 IN I.A-1/2022)

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.S.AMBILY SRI.BOBBY THOMAS SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL SRI.TONY THOMAS INCHIPARAMBIL

¶30

RESPONDENT/S:

¶31

1 KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶32

2 THE SECRETARY KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶33

3 THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.K.P.BABU, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶34

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADVS. SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA SHRI.JOICE GEORGE, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY SMT.T.M.BINITHA SMT.S.JANAKI SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).11896/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶37

: 3 :

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶41

FRIDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944

¶42

WP(C) NO. 11896 OF 2013

¶43

PETITIONER/S:

¶44

1 LAILA LATHIEF AGED 47 YEARS W/O.ABDUL LATHIEF, AYYARIL HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR PO, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.

¶45

2 M.P.SUBAIR AGED 47 YEARS S/O.PAREED, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, THANKALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.

¶46

3 RAMLA SYED MUHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS W/O.SYED MUHAMMED, KARAYIL HOUSE, PINDIMANA PO, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶47

4 M.M. MYTHEEN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.MEERAN, MAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR PO, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.

¶48

5 A.A. BAVA, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.ALIKUNJU, ANCHERI PULICKAL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR PO, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.

¶49

6 M.A. ALI, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.ENATHI, MONIKKATTIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR PO, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.

¶50

7 JAHFAR, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.MYTHEEN, MACHINGAL HOUSE, OLAKARA PO, THIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM 676 306.

¶51

8 P.M. SALIM, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.MEERAN, PONNAPPALA HOUSE, ADIVADU, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM .

¶52

9 P.M. ALIYAR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.MEERAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOVALLOOR PO, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 671. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)

¶53

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶54

: 4 :

¶55

SRI.ARUN ANTONY SRI.BOBBY THOMAS SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL

¶56

RESPONDENT/S:

¶57

1 KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.

¶58

2 THE SECRETARY, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.

¶59

3 THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.K.P.BABU,MUNICIPAL OFFICE,KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.

¶60

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. BY ADVS. SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA R1 TO R3 BY SHRI.JOICE GEORGE, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY SMT.T.M.BINITHA SMT.S.JANAKI SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R4 BY SRI. JOBY JOSEPH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶61

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).8618/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶62

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶63

: 5 :

¶64

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶65

--------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C). Nos. 8618 of 2012 & 11896 of 2013

¶66

Dated this the 6th day of January, 2023.

¶67

JUDGMENT

¶68

The writ petitions are filed by one and the same persons, who are licencees of the buildings owned by the Kothamangalam Municipality, respondent No.4.

¶69

The issue raised in both the writ petitions is in respect of the cancellation of the decision of the Municipal Council to grant license in favour of the petitioners, and the consequential action initiated to evict the petitioners from the buildings in question. Therefore, I have heard them together and proposed to pass this common judgment.

¶70

In fact, a detailed deliberation of the matter is not required also, since the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that the Municipal Council is prepared to re-consider the issue, dehors the cancellation of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council earlier.

¶71

It is also pointed out that on the basis of Exhibit P17 minutes of the meeting dated 15.04.2013 declining to renew the licenses, coercive action was initiated as per Exhibits P18 to P26

¶72

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶73

: 6 :

¶74

notices, which are challenged in W.P.(C) 11896 of 2013. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Exhibit P4 resolution dated 16.11.2011, which was the original challenge in W.P.(C) 8618 of 2012, by which the earlier resolution in favour of the licensees was canceled, is challenged before the Government by virtue of Section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and a stay was granted by the Government, as is evident from Exhibit P5 dated 08.12.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 8618 of 2012, which according to the learned senior counsel is still pending. Even though a renewal was sought thereafter, they were refused, and consequently apprehending forcible eviction, first writ petition was filed. In W.P. (C) No. 8618 of 2012, an interim order was passed on 04.04.2012 directing the appropriate authority of the Municipality to consider the applications for renewal.

¶75

Pursuant to the same, applications were considered; however, it was rejected, consequent to which the said writ petition was amended and Exhibit P15 order dated 28.04.2012 produced in W.P.(C) No. 8618 of 2012 was challenged.

¶76

I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners Sri. K.K. Chandran Pillai assisted by Adv. Lakshmi Anil, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality Sri. Joice George, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Joby Joseph, and perused the

¶77

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶78

: 7 :

¶79

pleadings and materials on record. In fact, no counter affidavit is filed by the Municipality. Anyhow, in view of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, which is under challenge before the Government, the Municipal Council has to consider the applications for renewal. This is more so in view of the powers conferred on the Municipality under Rule 7 of the Kerala Municipality (Acquisition and Disposal of property) Rues, 2000, dealing with the issue granting licenses.

¶80

Now, 10 years have elapsed since the filing of the writ petitions and since the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that the renewal applications would be considered in accordance with law, dehors the orders passed and discussed above, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

¶81

1. The petitioners are directed to file applications before the Secretary of the Municipality seeking renewal of the licences within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which shall be transmitted by the Secretary to the Council without any delay for consideration.

¶82

1. If any such applications are filed, it shall be considered by the Municipal Council at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks thereafter. If any license fee is due from the petitioners to the Municipality, the petitioners shall pay the same and produce the receipt along with the applications for

¶83

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶84

: 8 :

¶85

renewal.

¶86

1. The Municipal Council shall consider the applications dehors the pendency of the challenge made against the cancellation of the resolution before the Government by the petitioners; and the earlier dismissal of the applications consequent to the interim directions issued by this court which are under challenge in W.P.C. 8618 of 2012 and the coercive action initiated against the petitioners to evict them from the premises.

¶87

1. The interim order granted by this Court on 07.05.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2013 staying all proceedings pursuant to Exhibits P17 to P26 notices shall continue to be in force till a decision is taken as directed above. Thereafter, the petitioners will be guided by the orders so passed by the authority as directed above.

¶88

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶89

¶90

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶91

: 9 :

¶92

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8618/2012

¶93

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶94

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.09.2010 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.09.2010 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 28.10.2010 BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 16.11.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶95

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

True Copy

PS To Judge.

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶100

: 10 :

¶101

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11896/2013

¶102

PETITIONERS’ E P1	XHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27/9/2010 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER FROM THE IST RESPONDENT
P2	EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27/9/2010 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER FROM THE IST RESPONDENT
P3	EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 28/10/2010 BETWEEN THE IST PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT
P4	EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 16/11/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P5	EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
P6	EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE IST PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P7	EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P8	EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P9	EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P10	EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P11	EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P12	EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P13	EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P14	EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P15	EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4/4/2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 8618/12 B
P16	EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28/4/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶103

W.P.(C) No. 8618/2012 & 11896/2013

¶104

: 11 :

¶105

P17	EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 15/4/2013 OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
P18	EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE IST PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 29/4/2013
P19	EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 29/4/2013
P20	EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 29/4/2013
P21	EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY.
P22	EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 29/4/2013
P23	EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 29/4/2013
P24	EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 29/4/2013
P25	EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 29/4/2013
P26	EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 29/4/2013

¶106

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

¶107

True Copy

¶108

PS To Judge.

¶109

Laila Lathief, v. Kothamangalam Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laila Lathief, v. Kothamangalam Municipality

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

P.M.S.a.Memorial Malappuram District Co-Operative Hospital Ltd., Rep. by Its Secretary Vs State of Kerala

Mini Sajan Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Abijith Vs Koratti Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

M.M. Hamsa Vs the District Collector

Renuka Devi Vs Binu Francis, (Age and Father’S Name Not Known to the Petitioner)

M.M. Hamsa Vs the District Collector