BharatTaxGST

Suja E. vs. Director General Of Police

Original PDF →
WP(C)/22219/2018HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01053806201820 July 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN7 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 22219 of 2018 PETITIONER SUJA E. AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.ALFONSE E., AJIN NIVAS, ATTARIKAM, CHOOZHATTUKOTTA, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 571, MOB - 9562989440. BY ADV.SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU RESPONDENT(S): 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEMOM POLICE STATION, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 020. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEMOM POLICE STATION, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 020. 5. SREEKANTAN S/O.APPUKUTTAN, AGED 40 YEARS, MELE PANIKARUKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KUNNUKDU JUNCTION, PLANKALAMUKKU, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 018, CHAIRMAN ACTION COUNCIL, PLANKALAMUKKU, PAMAMCODE. 2 WP(C).No. 22219 of 2018 6. B.PRADEEP @ CHAMAYAM PRADEEP S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 43 YEARS, KARTHIKA, T.C NO.52/562, KUNNUKADU JUNCTION, PLANKALAMUKKU, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 018, CONVENOR, ACTION COUNCIL, PLANKALAMUKKU, PAMAMCODE. *ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT ADDL. R7 THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 695033. *IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/07/2018 IN I.A 12072/2018 R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P. THAJUDEEN R5 BY ADV. SRI. SANTHAN V. NAIR R7 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22219 of 2018 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 26.03.2018. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 03.01.2018. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE FEE REMITTANCE RECEIPT DATED 21.03.2018. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE CASH/CREDIT BILL OF THE BIO GAS PLANT. EXHIBIT P7. THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE BIO GAS PLANT. EXHIBIT P8. THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE BIO GAS PLANT TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE OPERATE AUTHORIZATION REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BIO GAS PLANT. EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ALLEGED ACTION COUNCIL. EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE mks 30/07/2018 P.R.Ramachandra Menon & Devan Ramachandran, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.22219 of 2018 B --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2018

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner claims to be the Proprietrix of a chicken stall being run under the name and style 'M/s.Olive Manna Chicken Stall' at Pamamcode, Thiruvananthapuram. According to her, she started the business under valid consents and permissions obtained from all the authorities and she claims that since the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram has not yet disposed of her application for licence, she should be construed to be enjoying a deemed licence.

2.

As per the petitioner, when she went on with the business on the strength of this alleged deemed licence, respondents 5 and 6, who are stated to be the residents of the neighbourhood formed an Action Council under their leadership and threatened her that she would not be permitted to continue with her business. On these allegations, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection to run her business from the alleged intimidation and threat meted out by respondents 5 and 6 and their men.

3.

When this writ petition was considered on 04.07.2018 we had directed that notices to respondents 5 and 6 be taken by the petitioner through a special messenger. Today, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that these respondents have been impleaded in the party array unnecessarily, since, according to him, they are in no way involved in the alleged unrest against the petitioner's business. The learned counsel vehemently submits that they have been impleaded for no reason at all and that they have nothing to do with the alleged Action council and they have no cause against the petitioner's business. It is reiterated by him that respondents 5 and 6 are not members of the Action Council and that they do not propose, in any manner, to cause any obstruction to the petitioner's business.

4.

Normally, when we hear the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 as afore, we would have been persuaded only to close this writ petition without any further orders. However, in order to obtain clarity as to the petitioner's allegations, we directed the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram also to place on record their views in the matter. Sri.Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, concedes that the petitioner had made an application for licence before the Corporation but that the same was not considered on account of the objections raised by certain persons in the locality. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Corporation is willing to consider the application of the petitioner and take appropriate action in terms of law.

5.

On a summation of the submissions of the parties as afore, we deem it appropriate to close this writ petition recording the submission of respondents 5 and 6 that they have not caused any obstruction and that they do not propose to do so to the petitioner's business either personally or as leaders of the Action Council. We also record the submission made by the Corporation that its competent authority will consider the petitioner's application for licence in terms of law.

6.

We, therefore, do not deem it necessary to consider whether the petitioner is legally entitled to claim the benefit of a deemed licence or otherwise and leave all such issues open for the parties to appropriately raise and pursue in suitable forums. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of recording the submissions made by respondents 5 and 6 and leaving the parties to their remedies and recourse in law appropriately. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv

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.