IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 12442 of 2005(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JAMES GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, MODERN GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS, OPPOSITE MALAYALA MANORAMA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC, KOLLAM CPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 12442 of 2005(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/02/2004 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04/02/2004 REGARDING PAYMENT MADE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/02/2004 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 13423/1999. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/05/2004 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12/08/2004 REGARDING PAYMENT MADE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20/08/2004 REGARDING PAYMENT MADE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5(b): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10/12/2004 REGARDING PAYMENT MADE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/03/2005 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14/03/2005 TO RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/03/2005 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE REGISTERED LAWYER NOTICE DATED 05/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23/07/2007 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 12442 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a licensee of a room belonging to the respondent-Kollam Corporation. He was evicted from the premises, at which time, his articles were allegedly still inside the room, for alleged non-payment of licence fee, and by Ext.P6, the petitioner was directed to furnish stamp papers work ` 62,218/- applicable to the lease deed allegedly executable by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs; “(a) declare that the direction of the Corporation to the petitioner to produce stamp papers worth Rs. 62,618/- after the petitioner has been evicted, is illegal and unsustainable; (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, commanding the Corporation to permit the petitioner to remove all the articles belonging to him and kept in the room in the Fourth Floor in A Block Building owned by the Corporation, situated at Chinnakkada, N.Thankappan Memorial Shopping Complex. 2. The petitioner submits that the question as to whether for the documents to be executed by occupants of the premises belonging to a local authority should bear stamp duty as applicable to a lease deed or an agreement has been held in favour of the licensees by a decision of the Supreme Court in New Bus Stand Shop Owners Association v. Corporation of Kozhikode [2009 (4) KLT 746 (SC)]. He would further contend that despite an interim order passed on w.p.c.12442/05 2 8.4.2005, the petitioner has not been permitted to take out the articles from the premises, although he complied with the conditions in the interim order. 3. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Kollam Corporation also. 4. I am of opinion that it is not necessary to consider this question on merits at all. Since the petitioner has already been evicted from the premises, there is no question of the petitioner now executing any lease deed. Stamp duty is applicable only for a lease deed executed. Insofar as there is no question of executing any lease deed by the petitioner now, there is no question of producing stamp paper worth ` 62,218/-. Therefore I hold that the petitioner is not liable to produce stamp paper worth ` 62,218/- as directed by the respondent in Ext.P6. 5. In respect of the articles, this Court passed an following interim order on 8.4.2005; “In case petitioner executes an agreement on stamp paper worth Rs. 250/- (two hundred and fifty) and also executes an undertaking on a separate stamp paper worth Rs. 50/- (fifty only) undertaking to pay the balance stamp duty found payable in case the apex court reverses the decision of this Court, the same shall be accepted and acted upon for the purpose of release of the petitioner's articles. Post after vacation.” On 27.2.2008, in I.A.No.2477/2008, this Court passed the following order: w.p.c.12442/05 3 “Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner has complied with the conditions imposed by this court on 8.4.05, the Corporation has not so for released the articles to him. The petitioner will serve a copy of the I.A. on the standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation who will seek instructions. Post on 3.3.2008.” Again on 11.3.2008, another interim order was passed as follows; “The counsel for the petitioner presses for orders in I.A.2407/08. The standing counsel for the Corporation seeks time to get instructions regarding the I.A. Post finally on 19.3.2008.” On 7.4.2008 still another order was passed. “The petitioner is directed to furnish details of the articles in respect of which interim direction is sought for in I.A. Post on Thursday.” Neither the Corporation nor the petitioner has furnished the details called for. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6 to the extent it directs the petitioner to produce stamp paper worth ` 62,218/- and leaving it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies regarding return of his articles or damages in respect thereof in appropriate other legal proceedings. Interlocutory application stands closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge