IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 582 of 2010(W) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.VIJAYAMOHANAN, PROPRIETOR, CONTINENTAL BOOKS, OVER-BRIDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION REP.BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REVENUE OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SC FOR CORPN. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 582 OF 2010 (W) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for 1st and 2nd respondent. 2. Since 1992, petitioner is a licencee of a shop room owned by the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, his licence fee is liable to be revised by 10% on annual basis and the last enhancement was by Ext.P1 effected in 2002. It is stated that now by Ext.P2 dated 2/12/2009, licence fee has been enhanced by 20% w.e.f. 19/7/2003 and that including the differential licence fee, advance and penalty, he has been called upon to remit an amount of Rs.9,63,202/- by Ext.P2 communication. In addition to all this, he is also called upon to produce stamp paper worth Rs.17,470/- for execution of a fresh licence deed. 3. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that this communication has been issued based on the Finance Committee's decision dated 24/4/2009. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the rate of enhancement, such enhancement being based on the decision of WPC 582/2010 :2 : the Finance Committee, it is for the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedies that are available against the said decision. 4. Now that even according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents, the decision of the Finance Committee has been communicated to the petitioner only now, it is only appropriate that the petitioner is given reasonable time to pursue the appellate remedy available. 5. Having regard to the above, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: (1) That it will be open to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy that is available against the decision of the Finance committee based on which Ext.P2 has been issued. (2) In order to enable the petitioner to seek the appellate remedies available, it is directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 will be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today. (3) In the meantime, petitioner shall continue to pay licence fee as fixed in Ext.P1. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp