Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Shemin A.S. and Sheeja Sathar, instituted WP(C) No. 6207 of 2021 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam against the District Police Chief, Kollam City Police; the Inspector of Police, Kottiyam Police Station; the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chathannoor Sub Division; and Aneesh Rahman of M/s. Pavakkada.

The appendix to the judgment records that the petitioners relied upon the following documents:

  • a settlement deed dated 28 January 2016;
  • a land tax receipt dated 8 January 2021;
  • building details;
  • a GST registration certificate;
  • a complaint dated 26 February 2021 submitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police; and
  • a complaint dated 26 February 2021 submitted to the District Police Chief.

These exhibits indicate the documentary background placed before the Court. However, the short judgment does not expressly narrate the underlying factual dispute or the precise reliefs originally sought, and therefore no additional factual allegation should be attributed to the parties beyond the judicial record.

Issues Involved

The principal issue ultimately arising for consideration was whether any live controversy remained for adjudication after learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous.

The judgment does not formulate or decide any separate substantive issue concerning the settlement deed, land tax receipt, building details, GST registration, police complaints, property rights, business rights, or police protection. Accordingly, no substantive determination on those matters can properly be inferred from the disposal order.

Petitioners’ Arguments

At the stage of final consideration on 28 October 2022, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the High Court that the writ petition had become infructuous.

This submission was decisive for disposal of the proceeding. The judgment does not record any further detailed arguments on the merits of the original controversy.

Respondents’ Arguments

The judgment does not record any substantive counter-arguments, objections, or detailed submissions made on behalf of the respondents regarding the merits of the dispute.

Therefore, it would be inappropriate to reconstruct or assume any respondent argument that is not contained in the judicial order.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court recorded the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petition had become infructuous.

Consequently, the Court ordered:

“This writ petition is therefore closed as infructuous.”

Accordingly, WP(C) No. 6207 of 2021 was closed as infructuous by the High Court of Kerala on 28 October 2022.

Important Clarification

The order is a disposal on the ground of infructuousness. The Court did not adjudicate the underlying dispute on merits, did not pronounce upon the validity of the documentary exhibits, and did not record substantive findings regarding the GST registration certificate, settlement deed, land tax receipt, building details, or complaints made to police authorities.

Therefore, this judgment should not be represented as a precedent deciding substantive rights concerning GST registration, property ownership, police protection, business operations, or the merits of the original controversy. Its precise legal effect is that the writ petition was closed after the petitioners’ counsel stated that it had become infructuous.

Sections / Constitutional Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India — The proceeding was instituted as a Writ Petition (Civil) before the High Court. However, the uploaded judgment itself does not expressly reproduce or discuss Article 226, nor does it identify any specific statutory section for substantive adjudication.

Doctrine / Principle of Infructuous Proceedings — Where the controversy or relief requiring adjudication no longer survives, a proceeding may be disposed of as infructuous. In the present case, the Court acted upon the petitioners’ counsel’s express submission that the writ petition had become infructuous.

GST Law Clarification: Although Exhibit P4 is identified as a GST Registration Certificate, the Court did not interpret or decide any provision of the CGST Act, SGST Act, or GST Rules.

Link to download the order-https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783330426_1324compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.