Disposed

S.Mohanan v. the District Collector

Kerala HC11 Jun 2024WP(C)/1262/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A licensee challenged enhancement of license fee by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, chaired by the District Collector. The Court held the writ petition maintainable against such a State-controlled Society but declined to mandamus amendment of bye-laws, permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the District Collector.

What the court decided

AI extract

S.Mohanan Vs the District Collector — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1262 OF 2016

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

S.MOHANAN, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.SUBRAHMANIAN, CHENNIKARA, MULLIPPADY, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN
DHANWANDHARI CENTRE, DHANWANDHARI CENTRE BUILDING,
KASARADOD, PIN: 671 121.

¶11

2DHANWANDHARI CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND DISTRICT PLANNING
OFFICER, KASARAGOD 671 121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
SMT.MINI V.MENON
SRI.P.VISHNU PRASAD

¶12

SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 1262 OF 2016 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner is occupying a shop room belonging to a Society known as ‘Dhanwanthari Centre’, which is Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1860’). The petitioner states that the aforesaid Society is registered with a sole intention to uplift the welfare of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities and the members of the Society are also the persons who belong to such communities.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the ‘Vannan’ Community, which is a Scheduled Caste community in the State of Kerala. It is submitted that this writ petition is filed, challenging the arbitrary enhancement of license fee in respect of the shop room allotted to the petitioner. It is submitted that, a perusal of Ext.P2 bye-laws indicate that though constitution of the Dhanwanthari Society is as a

¶18

WP(C) NO. 1262 OF 2016 3

¶19

Society under the Act of 1860, the managing committee of the Society entirely consists of Government officials and the chairman of the Society is the District Collector, Kasargod. It is submitted that a perusal of Ext.P3 photograph will show that the shop room allotted to the petitioner is not at all maintained. Reference is also made in this regard to the photographs produced as Ext.P14 along with the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, including a direction to the respondents to evolve a suitable mechanism for levying and enhancing the license fee in respect of shop rooms in the building belonging to the Dhanwanthari Centre.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose grant of any reliefs to the petitioner. It is submitted that the Dhanwanthari Centre is a Society registered under the Act of 1860 and the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus, commanding the Society to amend its bye-laws for the purposes of

¶21

WP(C) NO. 1262 OF 2016 4

¶22

evolving a mechanism for the fixation/levy and enhancement of license fee/rent collected by the Society from the allottees of shop rooms in the building belonging to the Society. It is submitted that the Society is giving grants and other aid to the members of the SC/ST community and the only source of income of the Society is the rent received from the shop rooms. It is submitted that there has been no arbitrary increase of rent/license fee and the petitioner is liable to pay enhanced license fee/rent to the Society. It is pointed out that the rooms having lesser area than that allotted to the petitioner, fetch more rent/license fee, than what is paid by the petitioner.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition against a Society registered under the Act of 1860 must be overruled, considering the fact that the Society is managed by a Managing Committee consisting entirely of Government

¶24

WP(C) NO. 1262 OF 2016 5

¶25

Officials and the District Collector, Kasargod is the Chairman of the Society. Coming to the reliefs sought by the petitioner, I am of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is right in contending that this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Society to amend its bye-laws to provide a methodology for an enhancement of license fee and it is for the Society and its members to take a decision on the methodology, if any to be put in place for the levy and enhancement of license fee. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to approach the District Collector, Kasargod (who is the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Society) with a suitable representation, if he has any grievance regarding the fixation of rent/license in respect of the shop room allotted to the petitioner. If such a representation is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the District Collector , Kasargod shall take a decision thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The

¶26

WP(C) NO. 1262 OF 2016 6

¶27

District Collector, Kasargod shall take a decision as directed above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of such representation (to be filed). Status quo as on today shall be maintained till a decision is taken by the District Collector, Kasargod, as directed above. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim and it will be open to the District Collector to decide the matter, in accordance with the law.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

GOPINATH P.,

¶31

 JUDGE

¶32

ajt

¶33

WP(C) NO. 1262 OF 2016 7

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1262/2016

¶35

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS` `P1`	`TRUE COPY OF CASTE CERTIFICATE DATED 3-1-2007` `ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KASARGOD`
`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAWS DATED 30/12/2011.`
`P3`	`TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROOM IN THE` `POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER`
`P4:`	`TRUE COPY OF LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED` `30/4/2007`
`P5:`	`TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 15/11/2011` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA`
`P6:`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1/2001/DHNKSD/1410` `DATED 19/11/2011 OF THE SECRETARY OF` `DHANWANDHARI CENTRE ISSUED TO THE DISTRICT` `PLANNING OFFICER, KANNUR.`
`P7:`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.5101//DHNKSD/1410` `DATED 27/9/2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `INCREASING THE RENT AT RS.1,545/- PER MONTH` `FOR THE PERIOD FROM 2/10/2010 TO 1/9/2011.`
`P8:`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.5101/DHN/KSD/1410` `DATED 19/9/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`P9:`	`TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 10/4/2012` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA AT KASARAGOD` `IN 2012.`
`P10:`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.51/01/DHN/1410 DATED` `20/5/2014 OF THE SECRETARY OF THE` `DHANWANDHARI CENTRE`
`P11:`	`TRUE COPY ORDER NO.51/01/DHN/KSD/1410 DATED` `30/5/2015 OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DHANWANDARI` `CENTRE`
`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 12-5-2015` `EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P13`	`True copy of the details of the licencees` `occupied in the building of the 2nd` `respondent obtained under the Right to` `Information Act.`
`Exhibit-P14`	`Photographs of the shop room of the` `petitioner.`

¶36

WP(C) NO. 1262 OF 2016 8

¶37

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2 (a)TRUE COPY OF LICENSE REQUEST DATED
30.05.2014 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN
FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS

¶38

Exhibit R2 (b)TRUE COPY OF LICENSE REQUEST DATED 28.04.2015
EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE
RESPONDENTS
Exhibit R2 (c)TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.02.2016 TO
REFUND RS.480/- BY THE RESPONDENTS
Exhibit R2 (d)A true copy of the Certificate of
Registration, dated, 09.10.1985 issued by the
Registrar of Societies, Cannanore District

S.Mohanan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S.Mohanan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saiju a.v, Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar.P., Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh.S Vs Ministry of Finance

S.Sangeetha Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Govt. of Kerala

Janaki Vs Village Officer

Miss.Ankitha K and Another Represented by Their Guardian Mr.Anilkumar K. Vs Kerala Table Tennis Association, Kozhikode District