IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
RAJESH P.R. S/O RAJAN – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 43513 of 2024
Decided On : 06-12-2024
(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ of mandamus - The petitioner, a Kuthaka holder, sought permission to operate a soda manufacturing unit during the festival season. The court found no legal right for the petitioner to seek such permission as it was not a Kuthaka item in the tender notification. (Paras 1, 5, 12)
(B) Legal right - The court reiterated that a writ of mandamus can only be issued when there is a legal right to compel performance of a statutory duty. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the Kuthaka holder for Hotel No. 3-Marakoottam and sought permission to operate a soda unit during the festival season, relying on previous permissions granted to his father. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner has no legal right to operate the soda unit as it is not included in the Kuthaka items list. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus to operate a soda manufacturing unit at Hotel No. 3-Marakoottam. (Paras 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Kuthaka certificate does not grant the right to operate a soda unit as it is not listed as a Kuthaka item, emphasizing that mandamus cannot be issued contrary to law. (Paras 12)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
1. The petitioner, who is a Kuthaka holder in respect of Kuthaka item No. 136 in the list of Kuthaka items, which forms part of the e-tender notification dated 19.07.2024 issued by the additional 5th respondent Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, in respect of Sabarimala Devaswom, for the year 1200ME (2024-25), who has been issued with Ext.P7 Kuthaka certificate No. 196/24 dated 15.11.2024 by the 3rd respondent Executive Officer, Sabarimala, has filed this writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and the 3rd respondent Executive Officer to grant him permission to operate a soda manufacturing and distribution unit during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1200ME (2024-25) and to issue necessary order, licence or permit without any delay. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Board to consider Exts.P4 and P5 applications dated 17.11.2024 and Ext.P6 application dated 20.11.2024, after affording him an opportunity of being heard, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent State and the additional 4th respondent Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2, 3 and also additional 5th respondent.
3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, originally the petitioner’s grandfather was the Kuthaka holder in respect of the Kuthaka item in question, who was conducting hotel by name ‘Ayyappas’ at Marakkoottam. After his demise, the petitioner’s father Ranjan Pillai was the Kuthaka holder in respect of the said Kuthaka item, who died in the year 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner is the Kuthaka holder in respect of the said Kuthaka item for the subsequent years. In the year 2016, by Ext.P1 order dated 03.12.2016 of the 2nd respondent Board, the petitioner’s father was granted permission to start a soda manufacturing and distribution unit at Hotel No. 3-Marakoottam, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. Ext.P1 order reads thus:
4. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P1 order dated 03.12.2016, the 3rd respondent Executive Officer issued Ext.P2 communication dated 03.12.2016 to the petitioner’s father Rajan Pillai granting permission for staring soda manufacturing and distribution unit at Hotel No. 3-Marakoottam. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of the Kuthaka certificate dated 24.11.2022 issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent Executive Officer, in respect of soda manufacturing and distribution unit at Hotel No. 3- Marakoottam with Serial No. 138 in the list of Kuthaka items, which forms part of the tender notification issued for the year 1198ME (2022-23). For the year 1200ME (2024-25), the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application dated 17.11.2024 seeking permission to start soda manufacturing and distribution unit at Hotel No. 3-Marakoottam. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 17.11.2024 before the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. Ext.P4 application was followed by Ext.P6 application dated 20.11.2024 before the 3rd respondent Executive Officer. The document marked as Ext.P7 is a copy of the Kuthaka certificate issued by the 3rd respondent Executive Officer in respect of Kuthaka item No. 136-Hotel No. 3-Marakoottam, for the year 1200ME (2024-25).
5. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, who is the Kuthaka holder in respect of Kuthaka item No. 136-Hotel No. 3-Marakoottam, for the year 1200ME (2024-25) is legally entitled to seek a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to grant permission to operate a soda manufacturing and distribution unit at Hotel No
Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh
AI
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued unless the petitioner establishes a legal right to compel performance of a statutory duty, which was not the case here.
Violation of tender conditions by the kuthaka holder requires corrective actions from the Board, emphasizing strict adherence to established guidelines.
The court ruled that suspended members of the Temple Advisory Committee cannot participate in an Ad Hoc Committee for temple management, emphasizing timely proceedings and investigation into Kuthaka ....
Point of Law : Grant of judicial relief at instance of a party that does not fulfil requisite criteria is something which could be termed as misplaced.
The successful bidder must comply with auction tender conditions, including timely payments; failure results in losses to the Board and re-auction rights being exercised.
Issuing writs related to deemed licensing under the Kerala Municipality Act, emphasizing opportunity for hearing before granting licenses.
No person with criminal antecedents or persons who have not obtained Police Clearance Certificate shall be permitted in any stall in the premises of the temples under the management of the 1st respon....
Statutory remedies must be pursued before seeking court intervention under Article 226.
Petitioners have the right to a fair hearing before any action by municipal authorities, ensuring compliance with procedural mandates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Cochin Devaswom Board cannot grant permission for film shooting activities in Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan based on the interpretat....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.