WP- Mangalya Nidhi Cess

7/21/2019 WP- Mangalya Nidhi Cess

1/18

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

AT ERNAKULAM

W.P (C) No. ________________ of 2013

PETITIONER

1. Thulasidharan Pilla, aged 52 years,

S/o Raghavan Pillai, Kadakkal House,

Thamarakkulam, Mavelikkara - 690530

2.

Nazarudeen K.M., aged 51years,S/o V. Muhammed Musthaffa, Proprietor of Thampuran Land Ground,

7/449, Thamarakulam, Mavelikkara690530.

v.

RESPONDENTS

State of Kerala,

Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary (Finance),

Finance Department, First Floor, Main Block, Government Secretariat,

Thiruvananthapuram, Pin695001

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDERARTICLE 226OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

A.Address for service of all notice and process to the Petitioner is that of its Counsel

Shri. P. THOMAS GEEVERGHESE , Advocate, Room No. 201, Mannanthara

Buildings, Paramara Temple Road, Ernakulam North682 018.

B.

Address for service of all notices and processes to the Respondents is as shown above.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The first petitioner is a father, preparing for the wedding of his daughter that is

auspiciously scheduled to be conducted on 23rdMarch 2014, in the auditorium owned

by the Second Petitioner. A true copy of the astrological schedule drawn up for the

said wedding by Josthsyer Ramesh K Nambuthiri on 10.8.2013, is produced herewith

and may be marked as Exhibit P1.

2.

The first petitioner is actually a farmer by avocation and is classified by the

respondent as a person falling in below poverty line family. A true copy of his ration

card issued by the respondent is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit

P2. He is arranging the finances for his daughters wedding through his large circle of

friends and relatives, who all are being invited for the wedding. It is usually a custom

for the people living in the southern part of Kerala, to financially and materially

contribute, when a wedding is being conducted in their family or neighbourhood. In

expectation of such contributions, the first petitioner is inviting about a thousand

people, for his daughters wedding.


2/18

3. The second petitioner is the proprietor of an auditorium named Thampuran Land

Ground atThamarakkulam, Alappuzha, having a total seating capacity of 1100 seats.

He is an assessee of Luxury Tax levied by the respondent, bearing registration

number 32042541767. A true copy of his registration certificate is produced herewith

and may be marked as Exhibit P3.4. In the Kerala Finance Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as the Act) the respondent has

introduced a new levy titled as Mangalya Nidhi Cess in Section 11 of the Act. It is

submitted that the said cess is a compulsory taxation on every wedding and its connected

celebrations, and is liable to paid by theperson who is conducting the wedding. Section 11 of

the Act (hereafter referred to as the impugned provision/tax) is extracted below for

ready reference:

11. Levy and collection of cess on wedding celebrations.(1) There shall be levied

and collected a cess to be called Mangalya Nidhi Cess on every wedding and itsconnected celebrations conducted in hotels having the classification of three star and

above or in auditoriums with a seating capacity of above five hundred including that of

dining halls, at the rated specifed in the Table below, namely:

TABLE

(i) Hotels of three star and above Rs. 10,000

(ii) Air conditioned auditorium situated Rs. 10,000 in Municipality area

(iii) Air conditioned auditorium situated Rs. 7,500 in Panchayat area

(iv) Other auditoriums situated in the area Rs. 5,000 of Municipality

(v) Other auditoriums situated in Rs. 3,000 Panchayat area

(2) The cess shall be collected from the person from whom the charges or rent for such

celebration are received by the proprieter of such hotel or auditorium, as the case may be,

and shall be remitted to Government Treasury in the Head of Account of Mangalya Nidhi

on or before the 15th day of every month.

(3) The proprietor of such hotel or auditorium shall file a statement in such form as may be

prescribed and submit the same along with the proof of remittance of Mangalya Nidhi Cess

to the assessing authority under the Kerala Tax on Lururies Act, 1976 (32 of 1976) having

jurisdiction over the area, on or before the 15th day of every month. He shall also keep a

register containing the details of remittance of Mangalya Nidhi Cess is such manner as

may be prescribed.

(4) The statement referred to in sub-section (3) may be filed and the amount of cess may

also be paid electronically bethe proprietor through the website of the Commerical Taxes

Department, Government of Kerala.

(5) The proprietor of the establishment entrusted with the collection of the cess shall apply

for obtaining a unique identification number to the assessing authority under to Kerala Tax

on Luxuries Act, 1976 (32 of 1976) having jurisdication over the area where such

establishment is situated, in such manner as may be prescribed and the assessingauthority shall allot the same to the establishment.

(6) Where any proprietor of a hotel or an auditorium as stated in subsection (1) permits any

person to conduct a wedding celebration without the payment of cess under this section,

such proprietor shall be liable to pay such amount of cess as if he had conducted the

wedding celebration and such amount shall be recovered from him as if it is arrear due

from him under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (32 of 1976).


3/18

(7) The Government may, after due appropriation made by the Legislature by law is this

behalf, utilise such sums of money for the purposes specified in the Mangalya Nidhi

Scheme framed by the Government.

Explanation.For the purpose of this section,

(a) The word proprietor shall include the person who the time being is in-charge of

management of such hotels or auditoriums, as the case may be;

(b) The word auditorium hall include shall and kalyanamandapam also;

(c) The word prescribed means prescribed by rules made by the Government in this

behalf.

(8) The provisions regarding the assessment and recovery of tax in the Kerala Tax on

Luxuries Act, 1976 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the assessment and recovery of cess

under this section.

5. The Mangalya Nidhi Cess is neither an amendment to any existing tax-legislation nor

is an increment to an existing tax, but it is a new tax, standing independently under

the Finance Act, 2013 itself. Section 11 was not declared under Kerala Provisional

Collection of Revenues Act, 1985, and therefore it came into force only on 23 rdJuly

2013, when the Finance Bill was signed by the Governor and got promulgated.

6. It is submitted that the impugned Mangalya Nidhi Cess although uses the euphemism

Cess, it is a compulsory extraction of money without providing any benefit or

service in return. The mere fact that it is called in the name of cess for administrative

needs by the draftsman do not in any manner either undermine the compulsorynature of the levy or render it any less a mandatory levy. The true character of the

impugned Managalya Nidhi Cess is that of a TAX on those who conduct a

marriage/wedding in an auditorium/hotel.

7. If one analyses the four essential components of the impugned levy, then the

Taxable Event is the Wedding and its connected celebrations conducted at

hotel/auditorium ;

Tax Obligationis upon the Person who pays the rent of the hotel/auditorium iethe

person who is conducting the Wedding;Tax Collection isby the Proprietor of auditorium/hotel; and the

Rate of Tax is fixed according to the location and category of hotel/auditorium in

which wedding is conducted and its minimum is 3000/-.

Pith and substance of the impugned cess is imposition of tax on every wedding and

connected celebrationshappening in the State of Kerala.

8. The budget discussion explaining the reasons and objects for the introduction of the

Mangalya Nidhi Cess, as available in the website maintained by the respondent, is

produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit P4. Apart from the preliminary

introduction as evidenced in Ext. P4, there was not a single serious discussion or legal

debate on the competence or impact of the impugned cess, when the Finance Bill was

tabled in the State Legislature.

9. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners are deeply aggrieved by the

introduction of impugned tax, since it adversely affects their divergent and collective

interests. The impugned cess casts an additional financial burden on the 1 stpetitioner,

to conduct his daughters wedding. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner is unnecessarily


4/18


5/18

Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which can be restrained under Article 19(3) only

for reasons of Sovereignty and Integrity of India or Public Order. Revenue collection

is not a permissible restriction under Article 19(3) of the constitution. Hence, Section

11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013 is violative of Articles 19(1)(b) read with 19(3) of

the Constitution.E. Marriage/Wedding is a sacred religious ceremonyfor the majority of Indians. For

Hindus and Muslims, Auditoriums/Kalyanamandapums, are essential for conducting

any marriage. According to Article 25 of the Constitution All persons are equally

entitled tofreely profess, practise and propagate religion. Article 27 deals with Freedom

as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion. A conjoint reading of

Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that religious

ceremonies are beyond the direct taxing realm of the Government. Hence, the

Mangalya Nidhi Cess enacted by the respondent is violative of Article 25 read with

Article 27 of the Indian Constitution.

F.The impugned cess cannot be categorised as a luxury tax, sincefirstlythere is already

a luxury tax levied under the Kerala Luxury Tax Act, 1976; secondly the literal

interpretation of the impugned provision explains it as a tax on marriage; thirdly and

most importantlywedding conducted by inviting 250persons and above is a not a luxury

but a matter of social commitment. One who does not have a minimum of

500persons to invite for his wedding, is a social deviant, and not a normal person. In

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of UP, 2005(2) SCC 515, it was held that luxury

means activities of indulgence, enjoyment or pleasure, and only those activities can besubject matter of tax under the said entry. Marriage is not a matter of indulgence or

enjoyment, but it is a social institution and a requirement of the society. Besides, size

of the hall booked or the locality in which it is located, are not the attributes of luxury

to impose a quotient of luxury tax. The 1stPetitioner is inviting so many number of

people for his daughters wedding, only in expectation to receive financial support

from the invitees and to discharge his social commitment.

G.The State cannot under the grab of Luxury Tax under Entry 62 List II, abduct a non-

taxable subject like marriage, by merely describing it as luxury. In Godfrey Philips

India Ltd. v. State of UP, 2005(2) SCC 515, it was held that first principle in relation to

the legislative entries is that they should be liberally interpreted, that is, each general word should be

held to extend to ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be

comprehended in it. Second Principle is that competing entries must be read harmoniously, that is, to

read the entries together and to interpret the language of one by that of the other. In such

interpretation, wedding and wedding celebrations falls under Entry 5 of List III, and

not Entry 62 List II.

H.Even otherwise, the impugned tax provision is so badly conceived and drafted that it

imposes tax even on Mass-Wedding-of-Poor, which are also organised inauditoriums alone. Hence, the very object for which the impugned tax is introduced,

stands defeated currently due to the bad drafting and poor conception of the

impugned provision. Besides, the inclusion of dining seats while computing the

seating capacity of the hall, virtually reduces the number of permissible invitees to

less than 250, if one decides to avoid tax.

I. The classification of weddings conducted in auditoriums/hotels having seating

capacity of 500 and above, is an arbitrary and unreasonable classification lacking any

reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Wedding and wedding


6/18

celebrations are not only conducted in Auditoriums, Hotels and Kalyanamandapams

alone, but they are also organised in Panthals/Canopy, which currently stands

excluded from any taxation. The exclusion of weddings conducted in

Panthals/Canopy, is arbitrary, unreasonable and differential treatment of

persons similarly situated.Therefore impugned cess is violative of Article 14 of theconstitution.

J. There is no reasonable excuse for differently taxing auditoriums/hotels, based on

their location, iewhether it is in Grama Panchayat, Municipality or Corporation, since

such classification does not further the object for which the tax is imposed.

K.The union government has enacted Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which occupies

and governs all monitory transactions during a marriage. It specifically prohibits

compulsory extraction of money during marriage, whether directly or indirectly, from

either party to the marriage. Therefore, Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013which demands tax on marriage, is akin to dowry, and is repugnant to the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 and therefore is void by operation of Art. 254(1) of the

Constitution.

For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is most humbly

prayed that this Honble Court may be pleasedto

1. Declare that Section 11 of the Finance Act, 2013 which introduces

Mangalya Nidhi Cess, is ultra vires the Indian Constitution and quash the

same as illegal and invalid.

2. Issue any other writ, order, declaration or direction as this Honble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Dated this the 22ndday of September, 2013.

Thulasidharan Pilla Nazarudeen K.M

[Petitioners]

P.Thomas Geeverghese

Counsel for Petitioners

Interim Relief

For the reasons stated in the Writ Petition and the accompanying affidavit this Honble

Court may be pleased to stay the enforcement of Section 11 of the Finance Act, 2013, till the

final disposal of the Writ Petition.

Dated this the 22ndday of September, 2013

P.Thomas Geeverghese

Counsel for Petitioners


7/18


AT ERNAKULAM

W.P(C) No. _________________ of 2013

Thulasidharan Pilla & another : Petitioner

v.

State of Kerala : Respondent

Affidavit

I, Nazarudeen K.M., aged 51years, S/o V. Muhammed Musthaffa, Proprietor of Thampuran

Land Ground, 7/449, Thamarakulam, Mavelikkara690530., do hereby solemnly affirm and

state as follows:

1. I am the 2ndpetitioner in the above writ petition. I know the facts of the case. I am

affirming this affidavit on behalf of the 1stpetitioner also, who is aggrieved similarly

and is espousing this writ together.

2. The statement of facts and grounds urged in the writ petition are true and correct.

The Exhibits P1 to P4 produced are true copies of the originals.

3. I have not filed any other writ petition before this Honble Court seeking the very

same reliefs prayed for in this original petition.

All facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and

belief.


DEPONENT

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the Deponent on this the dated this the 22ndday

of September, 2013 in my office at Ernakulam.

P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER


8/18


AT ERNAKULAM

W.P(C) No. _________________ of 2013


v.


Synopsis

1. Petitioners are aggrieved by enactment of Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013,

which introduces a new tax in the name of Mangalya Nidhi Cess.

2. Section 11 levies cess/tax on every wedding and its connected celebrations conducted in

halls/hotels/kalyanamandapams having minimum seating capacity of 500 and above.

The tax is levied from the person who is conducting the marriage, and the minimum

tax is 3,000.

3. Wedding/Marriage is a matter falling in Item No. 5 of List III (Concurrent List) of

Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution. It is a non-taxable entry.

4. A tax can be levied only under a tax entry and not under a non-tax entry as an

ancillary or incidental matter (Abdul Quader & Co v. STO, AIR 1964 SC 922).

5. Hence, this writ petition is filed to declare that Section 11 of Kerala Finance Act,

2013 is ultra vires the constriction and quash the same as illegal.





9/18


AT ERNAKULAM

W.P(C) No. _________________ of 2013


v.


INDEX

SL.NO. ITEM PAGE NO.

1 Synopsis I

2 Writ Petition

3 Affidavit

4Exhibit P1:True copy of the astrological schedule drawn up forthe 1stpetitioners daughterswedding by Josthsyer Ramesh KNambuthiri on 10.8.2013.

5Exhibit P2: True copy of Ration card No. 1421042555 of the 1 stpetitioner

6

Exhibit P3:True copy of luxury tax registration certificate No.320425/2013/CERTINO/60 of the 2ndpetitioner dated 14th

June 2013.

7Exhibit P4: Print out of relevant pages of Budget Speech of theFinance Minister, downloaded fromhttp://www.finance.kerala.gov.in



http://www.finance.kerala.gov.in/http://www.finance.kerala.gov.in/http://www.finance.kerala.gov.in/


10/18

Presented on :______________

Sub: TaxMangalya Nidhi Cessintroduced in Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013

Legislative competence and legality of, challenged.

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

AT ERNAKULAM

W.P(C) No. _________________ of 2013


v.


WRIT PETITION FILED UNDERARTICLE 226OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE (T-293)Room No.201, Mannanthara Building

Paramara Temple Road, Ernakulam


11/18

Appendix

Petitioners Exhibits:

Exhibit P1:True copy of the astrological schedule drawn up for the 1st

petitioners daughters wedding by Josthsyer Ramesh K Nambuthiri on10.8.2013.

Exhibit P2: True copy of Ration card No. 1421042555 of the 1stpetitioner

Exhibit P3:True copy of luxury tax registration certificate No.320425/2013/CERTINO/60 of the 2ndpetitioner dated 14thJune 2013.

Exhibit P4: Print out of relevant pages of Budget Speech of the Finance Minister,downloaded from http://www.finance.kerala.gov.in


12/18

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,AT ERNAKULAM

W.P (C) No. 23476 of 2013

THULASIDHARAN PILLA &ANOTHER : PETITIONERS

V.

STATE OF KERALA : RESPONDENT

REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERSI, Nazarudeen KM, aged 52years, S/o V. Muhammed Mustaffa, Proprietor of Thampuran

Land Ground, 7/449, Thamarakulam, Mavelikkara, do hereby solemnly affirm and state the

following:

1. I am the 2ndpetitioner in the above case. I know the fact of the case. I am

affirming this affidavit on behalf of the 1stpetitioner also, who is my friend, espousing this

writ petition along with me.

2. I have read the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, and this

reply affidavit is necessitated to address certain contentions made therein.

3. According to the respondent, the impugned Mangalya Nidhi Cess is a Fee

and not a Tax, and it is legislated under Entry 66 of List IIof the 7thSchedule to the

Indian Constitution.

4. In this context, it relevant to state that the validity of a statutory provision

is to be tested by the courtsconsidering the principles enshrined in the Constitution, and

not by the explanation rendered by an official of the executive in his counter affidavit. The

executive does not hold the brief for the legislature. Hence, the interpretation given by

respondent that Mangalya Nidhi Cess is a fees and not a tax, is actually of no relevance.

5. Presuming of the sake of argument that Mangalya Nidhi Cess is a fee as contended

by the respondent, then it becomes all the more illegal and unconstitutional. In Hingir

Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 459, the constitutional bench of the

Supreme Court explained when cess becomes a fees, and its characterises, as under:

(Para 9) A fee is levied essentially for services rendered and as such there is an

element of quid pro quo between the person who pays the fee and the public

authority which imposes it. If specific services are renderedto a specific area orto a specific class of persons or trade or business in any local area, and as a

condition precedent for the said services or in return for them cess is levied against

the said area or the said class of persons or trade or business the cess is

distinguishable from tax and is described as a fees. Tax recovered by public

authority invariably goes into the consolidated fund which ultimately is utilised for all

public purposes, whereas a cess levied by way of a fee is not intended to be, and

does not become, a part of the consolidated fund.


13/18

This judgment is usually read along with the dicta in State of WB v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.,

(2004) 10 SCC 201 to explain the concept of quid pro quo attributed to fees. The revenant

paragraph is extracted hereunder:

(Para 146) Depending on the context and purpose of levy, cess may not be

a tax; it may be a fee or fee as well. It is not necessary that the services rendered

from out of the fee collected should be directly in proportion with the amount of fee

collected. It is equally not necessary that the services rendered by the fee collected

should remain confined to the person from whom the fee has been collected.

Availability of indirect benefit and general nexus between the persons bearing

the burden of levy of fee and the services rendered out of the fee collected is

enough to uphold the validity of fee charged.

6. Therefore, the most important factor for a cess to be categorised as a fee, is

that there should be a beneficiary for the cess levied. In this case, there is no beneficiarydefined by the legislature. There is no provision or rule whereby anybody can be

benefited out of the impugned levy titled as Mangalya Nidhi Cess. All that Section 11(7) say

is that :

Section 11(7): The Government may, after due appropriation made by the

Legislature by law is this behalf, utilisesuchsums of money for the purposes

specified in the Mangalya Nidhi Scheme framed by the Government.

The impugned regime of Mangalya Nidhi Cess, as it stands today, provides only for

collection of fees and it has no provision, rule or mechanism for distributing the

benefits/services, for which it is allegedly enacted.

7. The non-compulsive axillary verb may used in Section 11(7) of the impugned

provision clarifies the fact that, levy is a tax indeed, and not a fees as sought to be

misrepresented by the respondent.

8. Besides, there is a complete mystery regarding the quantum of benefit

that is probable from the impugned cess. It prevents this court, as well as the petitioner,

from properly analysing the proportionality of impugned cess levied as fees.

9. In this juncture, it is relevant to state that the Finance Ministerhas made a

vague declaration in Ext. P4that the money collected through the impugned levy would

be used to fund the marriages of brides hailing from poor families. Ext. P4does not

have any statutory force. Hence, it cannot be the sole basis for collection of a cess, on a

subject which is prima facie outside the scope of legislative competence of the state.

10. Even if Ext. P4 declaration is given any statutory force in understanding the

real purpose behind the impugned levy and beneficial service intended thereby, even then

the impugned levy cannot be categorised as fee due to lack of apparent nexus betweenthe fee-payer and the proclaimed beneficiary.

11. In the impugned cess, the beneficiaries proclaimed as per Ext. P4 are girls from

economically weak families. The fee-payer is the person who is conducting a wedding with more

than 500 invitees, which is usually thefather of the bride.There is no nexus between the two

characters involved in the cess. They are complete strangers. The cess event does not

connect the two characters involved in the cess. The cess-payer is not even remotely

benefited by the impugned cess or its avowed benefit.


14/18

12. Similarly, the authority vested with the duty to collect the impugned cess, is

the Commercial Tax Department. They usually remit the money collected to the

Consolidated Fund of the State. In the impugned cess regime, there is no legislative embargo

on the collection agency not to remit the cess into the consolidated fund or to keep the fund

separately for the benefit of the alleged beneficiary. In such circumstances, it cannot be saidthat impugned cess is a fees.

13. A more disturbing factor about the impugned cess is the pure illegality of

the transaction, or what it stands for. Mangalya Nidhi Cess collects money from the

organiser of a wedding with more than 500 invitees, which is usually the father of the bride

and in lieu desires to finance the wedding of girls hailing from economically weak families.

This transaction, if rightly perceived, is the nature of the State demanding dowry

from the father of bride, and promoting dowry among weaker sections of the society.

14.

Any fees levied on marriage, weather by State or family of the bridegroom,would fall within the ambit of Dowry, which is prohibited under Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.Section 2 of the 1961 Act reads:

Section 2 Definition of `dowry :- In this act, `dowry means any property or valuable

security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either

party to the marriage or to any other person;

at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said

parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the

Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

Explanation II.-The expression `valuable security has the same meaning as in Sec.

30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

The impugned cess demanded as fees, would squarely fall within the definition of Dowry.

The cess/fee is basically money, which is a property. It is demanded by the State, in

connection with the marriage, from parents of either party to a marriage.

15.

In Kerala, there used to be a despicable practice of conducting a sonswedding to finance the marriage of the daughter. The impugned cess is one of similar nature.

Therefore, Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act,2013 is repugnant to the Dowry Prohibition

Act and therefore void by operation of Art. 254(1) of the Constitution.

16. Hence, the contentions of the respondent in its counter affidavit are without

any substance or basis. The writ petition ought to be allowed and Section 11 of the Kerala

Finance Act,2013 has to be quashed as unconstitutional.

All the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Dated this the 13thday of July, 2014

Deponent

Solemnly affirm and signed before me by the deponent who is personally known to me on

this the 13thday of July, 2014 in my office at Ernakulam.


15/18


Counsel for the Petitioner


16/18



I.A No. _________________ of 2014

in

W.P (C) No. 23476 of 2013


V.


VERIFIED PETITION TO ACCEPT REPLYAFFIDAVIT,filed under Rule 150 of the Kerala High Court Rules

I, P.Thomas Geeverghese, aged 29years, advocate, S/o P.T. Geeverghese, Vayaliparambil

House, Perumbavoor, do hereby solemnly affirm and state the following:

1. I am the counsel appearing for the petitioners. I know the facts of the case.

2.

The respondent had filed a memo on 19.3.2014 to adopt counter affidavit filed in arelated case, onto this case.

3. The petitioner ought to have filed reply affidavit within 24days thereon. However,

there occurred a delay in filing the reply affidavit, owing to the unavailability of the

petitioners.

4. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit today, which may be accepted onto the file

of the writ petition.

5. The delay occurred as aforesaid, is not due to any wilful laches or omission on the

part of the Petitioner. If the delay in filing the reply affidavit is not condoned,

petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship

Hence, prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the

reply affidavit and accept the same onto the record.

Dated this the 14thday of July 2014.

P. Thomas Geeverghese


All the facts stated above are true.




17/18



W.P (C) No. 23476 of 2013


V.


INDEX

SL.NO. ITEM PAGE NO.

1 Reply Affidavit

2 Verified petition to accept reply affidavit

Dated this the 14thday of July 2014.




18/18


HIGH

COURT OF

KERALA

,AT

ERNAKULAM

W.P (C) No. 23476 of 2013


V.


REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS

P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE (T-293)Room No.201, Mannanthara Building

Paramara Temple Road, Ernakulam

Documents

WP- Mangalya Nidhi Cess