Radha Kurup vs The Village Officer on 18 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36390 of 2009(P)


1. RADHA KURUP,AGD 65 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,EDAPPALLY VILLAGE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :18/12/2009

 O R D E R
                    P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
                        .......................
                     W.P.(C).36390/2009
                        .......................
          Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009

                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a senior citizen instituted O.S.No.574 of

2008 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam.

The said suit was settled out of court in the Lok Adalath held

on 27.2.2009 and an award was passed in terms of the

compromise arrived at between the parties. It is stated that

the petitioner thereafter applied for refund of the court fee.

Refund was ordered by the court below and the District

Collector, Ernakulam was requested to refund the court fee

as per letter dated 14.9.2009. The petitioner states that the

District Collector thereafter passed Ext.P2 order dated

20.10.2009 directing refund of the sum of Rs.13652/- and

communicated the said decision to her by Ext.P1 letter dated

3.11.2009. The petitioner thereafter approached the Village

Officer, Edappally Village and submitted Ext.P3

representation requesting him to issue a certificate attesting

her signature for the purpose of enabling her to obtain

refund of the court fee. The Village Officer thereupon

directed the petitioner to produce proof of having paid the

W.P.(C).36390/09
2

building tax in respect of a building known as ‘Kalpaka Fort

Palace’. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking a

direction to the Village Officer, Edappally Village to issue a

certificate attesting the petitioner’s signature. The

petitioner contends that the Village Officer has no

jurisdiction or authority to direct her to produce proof of

remittance of building tax for the purpose of attesting her

signature.

2. When this writ petition came up for hearing on

16.12.2009, the learned Government Pleader was requested

to get instructions. Today, when the writ petition came up

for further hearing, the learned Government Pleader

submitted that the Village Officer will, on the petitioner

appearing before him with proof of her identity, attest her

signature without insisting on production of a receipt

evidencing payment of building tax. In the light of the said

submission, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to

the Village Officer, Edappally Village to issue a certificate

attesting the petitioner’s signature for the purpose of

enabling her to obtain refund of the court fee ordered by

W.P.(C).36390/09
3

the District Collector in Ext.P2. Such a certificate shall be

issued on the day the petitioner appears before the said

officer with proof of her identity and a certified copy of this

judgment.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge

mrcs