Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Co-Operative vs Althaf V.B on 18 November, 2019
Author: A.M. Shaffique
Bench: S.Manikumar, A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WA.No.2323 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28242/2019(E) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 29.10.2019
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3:
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.F-1107
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
DR.SANIL S.K., GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM
SRI.V.J.JAMES
SRI.ALEX ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4:
1 ALTHAF V.B
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.BASHEER,
VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE, KOTTAI,
NEDUMBASSERY P.O., PIN-683 585.
2 JADHEER.C.J.,
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.JALEEL,
CHUNGATH HOUSE, CHUNGAM,
ADUVASSERY P.O., PIN-683 578.
3 RENJITH.P.G.,
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, MAIKKAD P.O.,
PALLIPADI-683 589.
4 V.EMARAL STEEFAN,
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE,
PARAYAN VILAI, THIRUVATTOOR P.O.,
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU-629 177.
W.A.2323/2019
2
5 ANSAR.M.A.,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER,
MANICHERY HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY,
NEDUMBASSERY P.O., PIN-683 585.
6 VIJU.P.G.,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN,
PINDIYATHUPADI HOUSE, KOTTAI,
NEDUMBASSERY P.O., PIN-683 585.
7 ASHRAF.P.K.,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KAZIM,
PADIKKAMUTTATHU HOUSE,
PARAYUR, DESOM, ALUVA-683 102.
8 KUNJU MOHAMMED,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.KAZIM, KALLAMKOTTIL HOUSE,
PARAYUR, DESOM, ALUVA-683 102.
9 RAJAN.A.K.,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KILUMATHI,
ILLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTAI,
NEDUMBASSERY P.O., PIN-683 585.
10 AJEEB.C.A.,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.LATE ASHRAF, 13/609,
CHITTUPARAMBU ROAD,
CHULLIKKAL, COCHIN-692 005.
11 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM,CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
12 THE TAHASILDAR,
ALUVA(ESTATE OFFICER),
TAHASILDAR OFFICE, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 101.
W.A.2323/2019
3
13 UMMER.P.M.,
AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.MOIDEEN,
PUTHUVAYIL VEEDU, MUTTOM,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 106.
SR.GP.SRI.TEK CHAND FOR R11 AND R12,
SRI.B.SURJITH FOR R1 TO R10
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.2323/2019
4
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of November 2019 A.M. Shaffique, J Sri. B Surjith appears for respondents 1 to 10. Senior Government Plelader Sri. V. Tekchand takes notice for District Collector, Ernakulam and Tahsildar, Aluva (respondents 11 and 12). Notice to respondent No.13 is dispensed with.
2. This appeal is filed by the third respondent in W.P(C). No.28242 of 2019, dissatisfied with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 29.10.2019. It is submitted that a frivolous appeal has been filed by the party respondents before the District Collector in a matter relating to Kerala public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. The writ petition was filed on the allegation that the stay petition was not considered by the Appellate Authority, who is the District Collector.
3. At the admission stage itself, the writ petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to all persons concerned. W.A.2323/2019 5 Direction was also issued to do the necessary within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and until final orders are passed, status quo was ordered.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that they were not heard before passing the order. The petitioner did not have a prima facie case for granting an order of status quo.
5. Appeal filed by the party respondents is a statutory appeal under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and the matter has to be finally adjudicated by the competent authority, who is none other than the District Collector. We are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge, ordering status quo.
6. The apprehension expressed by the appellant is that the direction has been issued only to complete service of notice within three weeks. We do not think so. We are of the view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is to dispose of the appeal itself, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is submitted by the counsel for the party respondent that they have already produced a copy of the order before the first respondent. In such circumstances, it shall be open for the appellant to participate in the proceedings and the District Collector shall complete the W.A.2323/2019 6 proceedings as expeditiously as possible and not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Learned Government Pleader is directed to communicate the order of this Court to the District Collector, Ernakulam (11 th respondent), for implementation as directed.
Sd/-
S. Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge sou.
W.A.2323/20197
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE 13TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2015.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.08.2019 IN WPC 20053/2019.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER GRANTED BY THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA IN IA NO.2005/2019 IN OS NO.367/2019 DATED 27.09.2019.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.2107/2019 IN IA 2005/2019 IN OS NO.367/2019.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 13TH RESPONDENT HEREIN IN IA NO.2007/2017 IN IA 2005/2019 IN OS NO.367/2019.