Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
SHIJI. A. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33843 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU, SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A., SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH, SRI.ABHISHEK M. KUNNATHU, SRI.BOBAN PALAT, SRI.P.U.PRATHEESH KUMAR, SRI.P.R.AJAY, SRI.K.U.SWAPNIL, SRI.PRANAV USHAKAR
For the Respondents: O.M.SHALINA
Expiry of contract negates petitioner's rights while ensuring fair reimbursement of excess fees collected under interim orders.
Headnote:This writ petition challenges Ext.P10 regarding relocation of advertisement media based on a contract expired on 01.11.2025, as highlighted by the respondents, which was not disputed by the petitioner. The court acknowledges the lapse of significance for relief sought. However, to address fees collected based on interim orders, any excess amount shall be refunded. This aspect illustrates the court's order on refunds due to contractual terms and the related interim motions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against advertisement relocation due to contract expiry. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. order for refund of excess fees. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, who entered into a contract with the respondent No.2 for exhibiting advertisements in Kannur Railway Station. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P10, by which, the petitioner was asked to relocate some of the advertisement media to other locations. An interim order was passed by this Court on 27.09.2024, staying the same, which is even now subsisting.
2. Today when the matter came up for consideration, the learned DSGI appearing for the respondents pointed out that, the term of the contract permitting the petitioner to exhibit advertisements is already expired on 01.11.2025 and therefore, the petitioner does not have any right to exhibit advertisement anywhere. The fact that the term of contract is expired is not disputed by the petitioner as well.
3. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, the relief sought by the petitioner has lost its significance and therefore, no further orders are necessary. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, based on the interim order passed by this Court, the respondents have collected an amount of Rs.74,788.4 towards license fee up to 19.05.2026. Therefore, it is ordered that, if any excess amount collected from the petitioner, towards license fee, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner upon an application being submitted in this regard, after deducting any amounts legally due to the respondents without any delay.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
