I.R.Jose vs. Thrissur Municipal Corporation
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1941 WP(C).No. 45 of 2019 PETITIONER : I.R.JOSE AGED 76 YEARS INJODIKKARAN HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR, NELLANKARA, THRISUR 680 005 BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SMT.R.S.MANJULA SRI.P.C.GOPINATH RESPONDENT : THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR 680 001 BY ADV. SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 45 of 2019 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was conducting a Bakery in Room No.8/156/2 of the Municipal Shopping Complex, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 demand notice dated 18.12.2018 issued by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the Corporation has no right, authority or juri iction to demand GST & SGST, interest or penal interest for the disputed Rent arrears from 2007 and that, the Corporation has no authority to demand rent at the rate of Rs.25/- per Sq.ft. as there was no written agreement under the Act or any other laws between the Corporation and the petitioner for the payment of rent at the rate of Rs.25/- per Sq.ft.
On 10.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. Sri.Santhosh Poduval, the learned Standing
WP(C).No. 45 of 2019 3 Counsel entered appearance for the respondent. This Court has granted an interim direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to occupy the shop room in question and to continue the business in the same, on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs towards the amount due to the respondent, within one week. It was also made clear that as and when the petitioner makes the remittance as directed, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to occupy the premises.
On 22.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the condition stipulated in the order dated 10.05.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment and accordingly, the matter was ordered to be listed on 28.05.2019, along with the Judges papers in W.P. (C).No.12834 of 2019, which is a writ petition
WP(C).No. 45 of 2019 4 subsequently filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by the judgment dated 30.04.2019, directing the respondent Corporation (3rd respondent therein), to consider Ext.P2 appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a time limit specified in that judgment.
Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the judgment dated 30.04.2019 in W.P.(C).No.12834 of 2019, nothing survives in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition may be closed.
Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is closed, in view of the judgment dated 30.04.2019 in W.P.(C).No.12834 of 2019. ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/10/6
WP(C).No. 45 of 2019 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT DATED 9.7.2018 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.12.2018
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.