M.P.Mathew @ Mathai vs. State Of Kerala

WP(C)/10178/2021HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01028136202130 June 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN6 pages

For Respondent: SPL.GP.FORESTS T.P.SAJAN

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioners operated a saw mill owned by respondents 3 and 4 under an agreement. Following disputes, respondents 3 and 4 refused to renew the saw mill's license, leading the petitioners to secure a civil court injunction against eviction. Subsequently, respondents 3 and 4 alleged forgery of their signature on a license renewal application, resulting in an order cancelling the license.

Held

The High Court held that the petitioners should have been granted an opportunity of hearing before the saw mill license was cancelled, especially since the cancellation order contained a finding of forgery against them. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order and directed the second respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing both the petitioners and the licensee.

Key Issues

The key legal issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to an opportunity of hearing before an order cancelling a saw mill license was passed, particularly when the order contained a finding of forgery against them.

Sections Cited

None

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10178 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: 1 M.P.MATHEW @ MATHAI AGED 82 YEARS S/O.PAILY, MANGARATHU HOUSE, AIROOR KARA, KOTTAPPADY POST, PINDIMANA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2 BABU PAUL AGED 56 YEARS S/O. FR.M.S.PAULOSE, MARACHERIPUTHAYATHU HOUSE, KAVALANGADU KARA, OONNUKAL POST, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 3 SANTY AGED 53 YEARS S/O. SEBASTIAN, IDAPULAVAN HOUSE, NADUKANI P.O., MALAYANKEEZHU KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691. 3 PHILOMINA JOSE AGED 65 YEARS W/O. JOSE MAHTEW, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, RAMALLOOR KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM POST, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN-686 691. 4 DR. JOSE MATHEW AGED 65 YEARS S/O. MATHEW THEKKEKARA HOUSE, RAMALLOOR KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM POST, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN-686 691. W.P.(C) No.10178 of 2021 -2- BY ADVS. SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SPL. G.P. (FOREST) ALIAS M.CHERIAN AJAI ALIAS CHALAPPURAM K.M.RAPHY BRISTO S PARIYARAM NEENU ANNA BABU OTHER PRESENT: SPL.GP.FORESTS T.P.SAJAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.10178 of 2021 -3- JUDGMENT Dated this the 30th day of June, 2022 The petitioners were conducting a saw mill belonging to respondents 3 and 4 based on an agreement. While so, disputes arose between the parties and respondents 3 and 4 refused to submit application for renewing the licence of the saw mill. Petitioners approached the civil court and obtained injunction against forceful eviction. On their part, respondents 3 and 4 lodged a complaint before the Forest Officials, alleging that the application for renewing the saw mill's licence had been submitted by forging their signature. This ultimately resulted in Ext.P11 order cancelled the licence issued in the third respondent's name, finding the entries and the signature in the application is not of the third respondent. The writ petition is filed

challenging Ext.P11 order.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners -4- contended that Ext.P11 order is ex facie illegal inasmuch as the finding of forgery is entered even without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also contended that the attempt through the order is to get over the injunction granted by the civil court.

Learned Special Government Pleader contended that, by the impugned order, licence issued to the third respondent is cancelled. Hence, it was not necessary to hear the petitioners.

Learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that, pendency of this writ petition is causing substantial prejudice to his clients and in order to give a quietus to the issue, the second respondent can even be directed to hear the petitioners. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents, I find that the petitioners ought to have been afforded -5- an opportunity of hearing before issuing Ext.P11 order. Even though the third respondent is the licensee and in that sense, the real aggrieved person, there being finding that the petitioners had committed forgery, their part also should have been heard. On that short ground, Ext.P11 order is set aside and the second respondent directed to consider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the licensee. The parties will be at liberty to put forth their contentions with respect to the allegation of forgery before the second respondent. After hearing, a fresh order shall be passed within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/30.06 -6- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10178/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THEOF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.6.2004. EXHIBIT P2 THEOF THE RECEIPT EXECUTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TOWARDS THE RECEIPT OF RENT UP TO 29.8.2020. EXHIBIT P3 THEOF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION (FORM NO.4) OF KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT DATED 26.9.2008 IN THE NAME OF IST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM HAVING TIN NO.32151545829. EXHIBIT P4 THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.32NHPP 3361GIZ4 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE IST PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH CONDUCT OF M/S. THEKKEKARA SAW MILL DATED 7.7.2018. EXHIBIT P5 THEOF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE CONDUCT OF M/S. THEKKEKARA SAWMILL DATED 16.4.2007. EXHIBIT P6 THEOF THE LICENSE FOR SAW MILL BEARING NO.WBI/KGLM/1/53/2015 DATED 27.10.2015 WHICH WAS VALID UP TO 4.11.2018. EXHIBIT P7 THEOF THE LICENSE BEARING NO.WBI/KGLM/1/13/2019 DATED 13.2.2019. EXHIBIT P8 THEOF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.235/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P9 THEOF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS IN I.A.NO.4/2020 IN O.S.235/2020 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM. EXHIBIT P10 THEOF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.4/2020 IN O.S.NO.235/2020 DATED 11.2.2021. EXHIBIT P11 THEOF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.3.2021 CANCELLING EXT-P8 RENEWAL LICENSE.

Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.