Hari Gopinathan Nair vs. The State Of Kerala
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUE AY ,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 23232 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: HARI GOPINATHAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, LAKE SYMPHONY RESORT,CHATHAMMA, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMAL RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 001 2 THE SECRETARY, KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM 682 506 R1 BY SMT.RAJI.T.BHASKAR,GP R2 BY ADV. SRI. AJITH GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 23232 of 2018 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the proprietor of a resort by name “Lake Symphony”, within the limits of the Kumbalam Grama Panchayat, functioning from the year 2008. According to the petitioner, the resort was recommended by the Department of Tourism for classification as service villas with an aim to provide comfortable stay facilities of standardized world class services to the tourists and to supplement the availability of accommodation in various tourist destinations.
Case of the petitioner is that, petitioner was submitting license application during the successive years and no manner of objection was raised by the Panchayat. It is also pointed out that, as per Ext.P5 receipt dated 01.03.2018, it is evident that, petitioner has submitted application for D & O license for the year 2018-2019. While so, Ext.P6 notice is issued to the petitioner dated 05.03.2018, directing the petitioner to stop the activities and report the matter to the Panchayat, since the petitioner is functioning in violation of the provisions of Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It is thus challenging Ext.P6 and seeking
WP(C).No. 23232 of 2018 3 other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.
A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P6, and also submitting that, in view of the nature of business carried on by the petitioner as per the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change, petitioner is functioning within the CRZ area, and it was thereupon that Ext.P6 notice was issued to the petitioner by the Panchayat.
I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the pleadings of the respective parties.
I am of the considered opinion that, no elaborate deliberation of the matter is required, since an interim order was granted by this court against the implementation of Ext.P6, which is still in force and the financial year will be over on 31.03.2019. Therefore, appropriate orders can be passed and the writ petition can be closed.
The interim order granted by this court will be in force up to 31.03.2019. If any application is submitted by the petitioner seeking D & O license for
WP(C).No. 23232 of 2018 4 the ensuing year 2019-2020, the 2nd respondent will be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if required, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE uu 22.01.2019
WP(C).No. 23232 of 2018 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHBITP1OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.G5(TIO)-73/2013 DATED 1-3-2013 EXHIBIT P2OF THE LICENSE NO.347 DATED 17-03-2015 EXHBITP3OF THE TRADE MARK REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXHIBITP4OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT P5OF THE RECEIPT NO.2018 DATED 1-3-18 EXHIBITP6OF THE NOTICE DATED 5-3-2018 EXHIBIT P7OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE DATED 28-2-18 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A. TO JUDGE
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.