Allowed

Ocean Polymers v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Kerala HC25 Mar 2024WP(C)/26300/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petition and quashed demand notices seeking higher lease premiums. The court relied on a connected precedent, directing respondents to hear the petitioner and decide finally within six months.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P4 and P5 demand notices set aside. Respondents directed to issue notice to petitioner, allow submission of views/documents, and complete decision within six months.

Ocean Polymers Vs the Principal Secretary to… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26300 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

OCEAN POLYMERS, KINFRA ADOOR PARK, IIDC PARK OFFICE ,ELAMANNOOR P.O., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, PHILIP A. MULLAKKAL, AGED 47 YEARS, OCEAN DALE, MULAKKAL HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KINFRA HOUSE, 31/2312, SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (FINANCE), THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KINFRA HOUSE, 31/2312, SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶13

R1 SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

R2&R3 SMT.LATHA ANAND

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) NO.26300 of 2018

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2024

¶20

The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are not justified in demanding higher amount towards lease premium after entering into a registered lease deed.

¶21

When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 placed before me the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14690 of 2012 dated 15.09.2023, wherein a batch of writ petitions were considered by this Court, in which this Court has set aside similar demand notices claiming an increased rate of lease premium on the basis of increased land value and gave full liberty to the respondents to proceed after hearing the petitioners and take a final decision in that regard.

¶22

I am of the considered view that the present writ petition is also similar to W.P.(C) No.14690 of 2012 and connected cases.

¶23

W.P.(C) NO.26300 of 2018

¶24

-:3:-

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices are set aside. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to issue notice to the petitioner and they are also given liberty to submit their views by also producing documents to substantiate their claim. The respondents are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶27

bpr

¶28

W.P.(C) NO.26300 of 2018

¶29

-:4:-

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26300/2018

¶31

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2010 ENHANCING THE VALUE OF THE LAND IN LAA NO.507/2006 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 10.01.2014 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 18.01.2017 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.06.2018 THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IDENTICAL CASE WP(C) NO.39869/2015 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10.07.2016.

Ocean Polymers v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ocean Polymers v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annamma Thomas Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector

Mary Santha Stephen Vs General Manager, State Bank of India

Sajeena Vs the Kollam District Co-Operative Bank

Salim Mathew Vs the Authorized Officer