W.P.(C) No. 25076 of 2024 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ANIL K NARENDRAN
Outcome
Withdrawn
Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn,
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Easement Act, 1882 s. 62
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a breathing time to challenge Ext.P18…
- Para 55. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is…
Judgment
SC, TDB- SRI. G. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.25076 of 2024 Anil K. Narendran, J. 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P18 demand notice dated 05.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, whereby he is required to pay a sum of Rs.6,75,353/- towards arrears of license fee and other penal charges in respect of shop room No.8 in Kamankulangara Devaswom Shopping Complex, within the time limit stipulated in that notice, failing which revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated against the petitioner; a declaration that Ext.P18 demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner is arbitrary and illegal; a declaration that the petitioner is not at all liable to pay any amount as demanded in Ext.P18 demand notice; and direct respondents 1 to 3 to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in the light of Exts.P1 to P17 documents.
During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on clause (f) of Section 62 of the Easement Act, 1882, which provides that a licence is deemed to be revoked where the licence is granted for a specified purpose and the purpose is attained or abandoned or becomes 4 W.P.(C)No.25076 of 2024 impracticable.
After arguing for some time, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner requires a breathing time to challenge Ext.P18 demand notice dated 05.06.2024 of the 2nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner by approaching the Civil Court.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a breathing time to challenge Ext.P18 demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, before the Civil Court.
Operative part
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner. ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE Sd/- MIN W.P.(C)No.25076 of 2024 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25076/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DTD. 14/2/2005 EXECUTED BETWEEN T V MADHAVANKUTTY AND PETITIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DTD. 30/6/2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO. 93/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER BY CHALLENGING THE ENHANCEMENT AND SECURITY DEPOSIT BY THE RESPONDENTS WITHOUT EXHIBITS A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 10/8/2021 FILED REGISTRAR PETITIONER BY (VIGILANCE) HIGH COURT OF KERALA BEFORE THE THE A TRUE COPY OF THE I A NO. 1/2021 IN W P ( C) NO. 93/2021 DTD. 10/8/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR IMPLEADING A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 21/9/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE CITY ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM CITY A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 1/11/2021 IN W.P.(C)No.93 /2021 FILED BY V. SREEKALA BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF HIGH COURT A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. NIL FILED BY V. SREEKALA BEFORE THE LAW OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 1/11/2021 FILED BY SREEKALA BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/11/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION REPORT DTD. 11/5/2023 OF THE STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE W.P.(C)No.25076 of 2024 6 EXHIBIT P13 EXHIBIT P14 EXHIBIT P 15 EXHIBIT P16 EXHIBIT P17 EXHIBIT P18 LABORATORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 1061/2021 DTD. 23/9/2021 OF THE CHAVARA POLICE STATION A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/10/2021 IN W P (C) NO.93/2021 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 8/11/2022 IN W.P.(C)No.93/2021 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 9/4/2024 IN R P NO. 1077/2023 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA A TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. 583 DTD. 5/6/2024 FOR RS. 6,75,353/- ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15/6/2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn,
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Easement Act, 1882 — s. 62.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.