Siby Thomas vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 26 July 2022

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WP(C).23486/22 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 23486 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: SIBY THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, AREEPLACKAL HOUSE, ELLUMPURAM KARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685581 BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, OPP. MUSEUM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033. 3 JOINT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI - 685508 4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI - 685508 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).23486/22 2 V.G.ARUN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 23486 of 2022 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2022

JUDGMENT Petitioner is conducting money lending business since 2015. The licence for conducting stands renewed up to 31.3.2023. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by Exhibit P4 order cancelling the licence under Section 14(a), (c) and (d) of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. Petitioner has preferred Exhibit P5 appeal against Exhibit P4 order. Acording to the petitoner, there is no provision under the Money Lenders Act, enabling the appellate authority to stay the operation of Exhibit P4 and to permit the petitioner to continue the money lending business.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exhibit P4 order is one passed under dictation and not based on independent application of mind. It is submitted that any decision taken by a statutory authority at the behest of another person, who has no statutory role to play is ex facie illegal. The impugned order being one passed on the basis of a letter submitted by the Inspector of Police, Kulamavu Police Station and that too, without hearing the petitioner, violates principles of natural justice also.

Learned Government Pleader referted to Section 16C of the Act, providing for filing of interlocutory applications on payment of fees.

Having perused Sections 16B and 16C, I am also of the opinion that the appellate auithority is empowered to pass interim orders in appropriate case. The contention that Exhibit P4 order is one passed under dictation and the licence was cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing, are all matters which the appellate authority is competent to consider.

The Government Pleader pointed out that Exhibit P5 appeal is defective for want of payment of requisite fees. If the appeal or the interlocutory application is to be heard, the petitioner will have to cure the defect forthwith. If the petitioner cures the defect by payment of requisite fees and files an interlocutory application under Section 16C, the appellate authority is bound to consider the application and pass orders. The writ petition is hence disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit an interlocutory application under Section 16C, after paying the requisite fees on the appeal and application. If the interlocutory application is filed, after paying requisite fees, the appellate authority shall pass orders thereon within two days of submission. V.G.ARUN, JUDGE vgs APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23486/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 22.04.2015 Exhibit P2OF THE RENEWED LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.04.2022 Exhibit P3OF THE NOTICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2022 Exhibit P4OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.04.2022 Exhibit P5OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF THE PETITIONER