IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2284 of 2007()
1. THE CALICUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.K.RAJENDRAN,VALAPPIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :25/10/2007
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
W.A. No. 2284 OF 2007
...................................................................................
Dated this the 25th October , 2007
J U D G M E N T
H.L. Dattu, C.J.:
This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned single
Judge in O.P.No. 23497 of 2000 dated 15th March, 2007.
2. The petitioner in the Original Petition was before this court inter alia
seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Ext.P20 order issued by the
respondent-Calicut Development Authority (‘Authority’ for short).
3. This Court, while entertaining the Original Petition had granted an
interim order, staying Ext.P20 order dated 20.05.2000 passed by the
respondent-Authority.
4. Nearly after seven years from the date of filing of the Original
Petition, the matter has been disposed of by this Court, rejecting the Original
Petition.
5. This Court, while confirming Ext.P20 order passed by the
appellant/respondent-Authority dated 20.05.2000, has granted a very minor
relief to the petitioner in the Original Petition and while doing so, this Court
has observed that because of the pendency of the Original Petition before this
Court and because of the interim order granted, the interest part on the
arrears of rental payable by the petitioner has mounted and therefore some
reliefs require to be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court had
directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of rental with 2/3rd interest at the
W.A. No. 2284 OF 2007
2
agreed rate, on or before a particular day. Further, the Court has waived
1/3rd of the interest on the arrears of rental payable by the petitioner.
6. Aggrieved by the discretionary orders so passed by the learned
single Judge, the appellant/respondent-Authority is before us in this Writ
Appeal.
7. Shri K.T. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/respondent-Authority would submit that the learned single Judge,
while rejecting the Original Petition, was not justified in waiving the interest
agreed upon by the petitioner as per the agreement between the parties.
8. In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent-Authority has no merit whatsoever. As we have already
noticed, the Original Petition was filed sometime in the year 2000 and this
Court had granted an interim order staying Ext.P20 order passed by the
appellant/respondent-Authority. In view of the interim order granted by this
court, the petitioner in the Original Petition/1st respondent herein had not paid
the arrears of rental. While disposing of the Original Petition, the learned
single Judge has come to the conclusion that because of the interim order
granted by this Court, the interest on the arrears of rental has mounted and
therefore, some reliefs require to be granted to the petitioner. Those orders
are passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of his extraordinary and
discretionary jurisdiction and while doing so, the Court has assigned
appropriate reasons . In that view of the matter, we do not see any good
W.A. No. 2284 OF 2007
3
grounds to interfere with the orders and directions issued by the learned
single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is
rejected.
8. Pending Interlocutory Application is also disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk