Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 380 (KER)

K. N. FAJAR S/o. C. K. KASMI v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-02-25

SYAM KUMAR V.M.

body2025
JUDGMENT : This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “a. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P13 order and Ext.P12 order ; b. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1 st respondent to consider afresh Ext.P7 representation filed by the petitioner ; c. pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case ; and d. award costs.” 2. Petitioner is the Managing Partner of an entity engaged in the business of household items. In the year 2005, he had applied for and was allotted storage space in certain rooms measuring 6364 sq. feet in the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium by the 2 nd respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) as per Ext.P1 offer letter dated 28.03.2005 upon depositing the amounts as directed therein and upon compliance with the conditions therein. It was specifically stipulated in Ext.P1 that a licence agreement had to be registered at the cost and expense of the petitioner within 15 days of remittance of the advance amount and that permission to use the space will be granted only on production of the registered licence agreement in original. It is the contention of the petitioner that though a draft licence deed was prepared and presented for execution before the 2nd respondent the same was never executed. Subsequently, vide Ext.P2 dated 03.10.2005 further amounts were sought towards advance rent and security deposit and the petitioner was also permitted to carry out repair works and the cost of such repairs was permitted to be adjusted from future rent. Thereafter in the year 2006 the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 dated 26.09.2006 directing to furnish further additional security which too was deposited and a request was preferred for the execution of the licence which was to no avail. It is contended by the petitioner that he was unable to utilize the rented premises due to the absence of the registered licence deed as without such deed, it was impossible to take registration under the relevant statutes Sales Tax Act., Value Added Tax for running a godown. While so in the year 2011, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 directing him to pay Rs.29,83,870/- towards arrears of rent for the period 29.03.2005 to 10.03.2010. While so in the year 2011, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 directing him to pay Rs.29,83,870/- towards arrears of rent for the period 29.03.2005 to 10.03.2010. Petitioner replied to the same vide Ext.P5 pointing out that no licence deed had been executed and that the repair cost incurred by him had not been adjusted to the rent arrears. Thereafter, Ext.P6 demand notice dated 10.08.2012 was issued to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.28,85,865/- which had been arrived at after deducting the amount of Rs.98,005/- spent for repairs. Petitioner preferred a representation Ext.P7 dated 21.08.2012 before the concerned minister and obtained Ext.P8 order which inter alia called for a report as well as directed the GCDA to keep the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 in abeyance. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of Ext.P8 order of the Government, the GCDA issued another demand notice dated 24.09.2012 demanding from the petitioner an amount of Rs.80,13,778/- within 7 days towards arrears of rent for the period 29.03.2005 to 30.09.2012. The petitioner then filed W.P (C) No.22862 of 2012 before this Court which led to Ext.P10 judgment dated 19.10.2012 inter alia directing as follows: “8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner can be directed to remit certain amounts in view of the huge liability shown in Ext.P11, to the tune of more than Rs.80 lakhs. The proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 will be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the Government, on condition of the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.10 lakhs within a period of three weeks. Since the parties have some dispute regarding the total payments to be made, further action will depend upon the order to be passed by the Government. There will be a further direction to the Government to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Petitioner in compliance with the judgment, remitted the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and was heard in detail by the Deputy Secretary of the 1 st respondent pursuant to Ext.P11 notice dated 20.03.2015. Thereafter while expecting orders pursuant to the hearing conducted, the petitioner was issued Ext.P12 notice dated 18.09.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent, inter alia informing that the representation preferred by the petitioner to the 1 st respondent had been dismissed as not meriting consideration and that since the petitioner had defaulted in remitting rent with respect to the relevant rooms for a period of 10 years and had not produced the agreement, it had been decided to re-possess the said rooms and lease them out in public auction. He was also called upon to remit an amount of Rs.1,81,01,924/- towards arrears of rent with respect to the said shop rooms. It is only upon receipt of Ext.P12 that the petitioner came to know that his representation to the 1st respondent had already been dismissed vide Ext.P13 G.O. dated 22.07.2015. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P13 inter alia on the premise that the same is unsustainable in law for non-compliance of natural justice in so far as the said G.O. had been issued by an officer other than the officer who had heard the petitioner. He also seeks to quash Ext.P12 issued by the 2 nd respondent pursuant to Ext.P13. 3. A counter affidavit dated 17.03.2016 has been filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents viz., the Secretary of the GCDA as well as its Estate Officer, inter alia contending that though the petitioner had occupied the relevant rooms from 29.03.2005 onwards, no payment was made by him towards licence fee and other charges except an amount of Rs.1,35,100/- remitted towards security deposit. The rent and security deposit were refixed as per the additional space allotted to the petitioner. Though a draft lease agreement had been issued to the petitioner, he did not execute the same. He had been using the rooms as godown space without registering the lease deed and without paying rent. Ext.P13 G.O. had for reasons elaborated therein specifically concluded that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves no merit and the same had been rejected. 4. He had been using the rooms as godown space without registering the lease deed and without paying rent. Ext.P13 G.O. had for reasons elaborated therein specifically concluded that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves no merit and the same had been rejected. 4. In the meanwhile, an impleading petition dated 08.08.2016 numbered I.A.No.36503 of 2016 was filed by one Sri.P.Sreedharan seeking to implead himself in the W.P.(C) inter alia pointing out that upon the oral instruction of the chairman of the GCDA, he had been permitted to stock chairs, tables and accessories as part of his business, in eight rooms allotted to the petitioner lying vacant in the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium in the presence of the Assistant Engineer of GCDA and the petitioner in the W.P. However, on 03.08.2016 the GCDA had sealed eight rooms and hence the chairs, tables and other articles stocked therein could not be removed. It is further stated that the GCDA officers had on 04.08.2016 collected from him an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards rent, cess and service tax as evidenced by Ext.R4 (A). He had also preferred Ext.R4 (C) representation before the Secretary GCDA requesting to permit him to continue to occupy the said rooms or to allow him to remove his articles stored therein. 5. Since revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, Exts.P16 and P17 demand notices issued under the RR Act were produced by the petitioner and a stay of operation thereof was sought vide I.A.No.2 of 2022 and the impleadment of the 5th Addl. respondent was sought. This Court had stayed Ext.P16 and P17 notices. 6. A counter affidavit dated 10.11.2022 has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 ( GCDA) reiterating the statements made in the earlier counter affidavit and also stating additional facts and information. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner had in addition to the rooms allotted, trespassed into the space between the rooms having 79.20 sq m with rolling shutters and another room No.G1301 having an area of 29.01.sq.m. Exts.R2 (a) to R2 (e) were produced along with the said counter affidavit. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner had in addition to the rooms allotted, trespassed into the space between the rooms having 79.20 sq m with rolling shutters and another room No.G1301 having an area of 29.01.sq.m. Exts.R2 (a) to R2 (e) were produced along with the said counter affidavit. It has been inter alia stated in the said counter affidavit that subsequent to Ext.P13 order issued by the Government rejecting Ext.P7 representation and upholding Ext.P9 demand, re-possession of 15 rooms given on licence to the petitioner and one room allegedly occupied by him unauthorizedly had been taken re- possession of on 03.08.2016. It is contended that petitioner is liable to pay rent, interest and service tax for the period 28.03.2005 to 03.08.2016. Regarding the payment of Rs.10 lakhs pursuant to the direction of this Court, it has been stated in the affidavit that the same was not remitted within the stipulated time and the payment of the said amount cannot be termed as per the Court Order. 7. Pursuant to the direction of this Court on 13.09.2023, a statement has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner producing therewith Exts.P18 to P29. Exts.P22 to P27 thereof are copies of demand drafts stated to have been drawn by the petitioner towards payment of amounts due to the 2 nd respondent with respect to the occupation of the relevant rooms. It is also submitted therein that during the pendency of the WP, stocks in the shop rooms occupied by the petitioner were put on action and an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- was realised by the GCDA. Ext.P28 had been produced to substantiate the said fact. Petitioner had on 10.11.2024 produced Ext.P30 which is a representation dated 07.11.2024 issued by him to the Chairman of the 2 nd respondent inter alia requesting that another similarly placed tenant had been permitted to pay a meagre amount thereby reducing the liability and the same benefit may be extended to the petitioner too. Pointing out that any denial of similar benefit would amount to a violation of Article 14 of the constitution and thus would be arbitrary and discriminatory, the petitioner had vide Ext.P30 requested that the arrears may be determined as per order dated 27.02.2012 at Rs.29,83,870/-. 8. With pleadings as above, the matter was placed before me for hearing. Heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, Advocate for the petitioner. 8. With pleadings as above, the matter was placed before me for hearing. Heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri.S.Sreekumar, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.P.Maritin Jose, Advocate appeared for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents. Smt.K.M. Rashmi, learned Senior Government Pleader appeared for the 1 st respondent. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P13 order issued by the Under Secretary to the Government is unsustainable in law as it violates the principle of natural justice. It is trite that the person who hears the matter has to decide. Petitioner was heard by the Secretary, Local Self Government Department. However, Ext.P13 G.O. is rendered by Under Secretary to the government. This militates against the principle that ‘He who decides must hear/ he who hears must decide.’ On the said ground alone, Ext.P13 is fit to be quashed, submits the learned counsel. He further assails Ext.P13 on the ground that the same is not a speaking order. It does not refer to the contentions that were put forth by the petitioner before the concerned officer. Though the specific contention put forth by the petitioner all along was that if the arrears due as per Exts.P4 and P5 for the period of 5 years from 2005 to 2010 were Rs.28,85,865/-, then by no stretch of the imagination could the said figure reach Rs.80,13,778/- within 2 years time as seen from Ext. P9 or yet further increase to Rs.1,81,01,924/- as evidenced from Ext. P12. This aspect had not been considered or discussed at all in Ext.P13. To the said extent Ext.P13 is mechanical, passed without proper application of mind and hence unsustainable in law. Lack of certainty and dubiousness on the part of the respondents is alleged by the petitioner pointing to Ext.P14 order issued by the Secretary of the GCDA whereby the arrears of rent due as of 28.03.2010 was earlier stated to be Rs.29,83,870/- instead of Rs.80,13,778/-, which order the petitioner states, was subsequently cancelled by the Chairman of GCDA for reasons unknown. Violation of the arbitrariness facet of Article 14 of the Constitution is also alleged on the part of GCDA by the petitioner by relying on Ext.P15 interim order dated 20.12.12 of this Court in WP (C) No.29864 of 2012. Violation of the arbitrariness facet of Article 14 of the Constitution is also alleged on the part of GCDA by the petitioner by relying on Ext.P15 interim order dated 20.12.12 of this Court in WP (C) No.29864 of 2012. This court had in the said interim order directed the petitioner therein to remit the admitted arrears of Rs.8,42,285/- plus tax within a period of 15 days. However, the 2 nd respondent had reduced the amount due to the petitioner in the said Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that he is also entitled to the similar benevolence and favourable treatment afforded to the petitioner in the said Writ Petition. The arbitrariness of treating similarly situated lessees at the hands of the respondent public entity is thus alleged by the counsel for the petitioner relying on Ext.P15. Though an amount of Rs.10 lakh had been remitted by the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court in Ext.P10 judgment, the same had not been deducted before the issuance of Exts.P9 and P12 notices. Though a detailed breakdown of the rent arrears allegedly due was sought, the same had not been provided. It is strenuously contended that notwithstanding repeated requests made by the petitioner as would be seen from Exts.P5 and P7 representation, the lease deeds with respect to the relevant shop rooms were not executed. The said refusal had seriously affected the conduct of business from the said shop rooms and had constricted the uses to which the said rooms could be beneficially put to by the petitioner. The allegation of GCDA in Ext.P12 that the petitioner had not paid the amounts due is incorrect. Petitioner had remitted the advance rent and security deposit as revealed from Exts.P1, P2 and P3. It was thereafter that Ext.P4 notice dated 28.09.2011 demanding Rs.29,83,870/- was issued to the petitioner. Relying on Exts.P18, P19 & P20 it is contended that some of the shop rooms allotted to the petitioner had been re-auctioned without the knowledge of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had remitted the rent for the months of March to June 2013 as evidenced by Exts.P21 to P24. It was in addition to the same that Rs.10 Lakh as directed to be paid by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment had been remitted by the petitioner vide Exts.P25 and P26. Further, the petitioner had remitted the rent for the months of March to June 2013 as evidenced by Exts.P21 to P24. It was in addition to the same that Rs.10 Lakh as directed to be paid by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment had been remitted by the petitioner vide Exts.P25 and P26. Payment of an amount of Rs.2,06,348/- by the petitioner to the GCDA with respect to certain movables kept in the premise is evidenced by Ext.P27 dated 24.08.2016. Moreover, the GCDA had put the stocks in the shop rooms of the petitioner to auction vide notice dated 11.09.2018 and had realised an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- as revealed from Ext.P29. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the said payments made by the petitioner have not been factored in while computing the alleged outstanding amounts. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that there was no rhyme, reason or basis for the exorbitant interest amount claimed from the petitioner even assuming that rent was due. Interest according to him was never part of Ext.P4 notice issued. If at all any interest is sought to be claimed, the GCDA ought to file a suit in the said respect and it cannot be through RR action as seen undertaken especially since no agreement has been entered into with the petitioner. The RR action initiated vide Exts.P16 and P17 is illegal and arbitrary. Ext.P4 had referred to arrears of rent at Rs.29,83,870/-. The RR however, has been initiated for an amount which has not been substantiated. Based on the impleadment by the 4 th additional respondent and the contention of the said respondent that the Chairman of the GCDA had orally permitted the said additional respondent to occupy the rooms allotted to the petitioner, and to store his wares therein, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same buttresses his contention regarding capriciousness and the total lack of fairness in the affairs of the GCDA vis a vis leasing out of its shop rooms. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had, as revealed by Ext.P30 dated 07.11.2024 preferred a representation before the Chairman GCDA, inter alia seeking parity in treatment with the petitioner in a writ petition viz., WP (C) No. 29864/2012 for whom liability had been reduced and hence the GCDA may be directed to consider the said request and keep the coercive steps initiated in abeyance till then. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus sought to quash Ext.P12 order of the GCDA and Ext.P13 G.O issued by the 1 st respondent. 10. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the GCDA submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in law and is only an attempt by a recalcitrant lessee to evade the payments legally due to the public exchequer. As regards the contention that Ext.P13 is bad in law for having rendered by an officer other than who had heard the matter, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Sudheer T. v. M.V.Susheela and others ( 2009 (3) KHC 991 ) wherein it has been held that in matters of statutory appeals and revisions before the Government, decisions are taken in accordance with the rules of Business and communicated in the name of the Governor. The order may be signed by the Secretary / Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary / Deputy Secretary / Under Secretary as the case may be. But the decision may or may not be one taken by the officer who signed it. The principle that he who heard must decide cannot be made applicable to such decisions. As regards Ext.P13 G.O. is concerned it was heard by the Secretary, Local Self Government Department. However, it was signed by Under Secretary to the Government. The same is perfectly justified and legal as part of Government business. The petitioner has no allegation that the said decision was subjective. No prejudice has been shown or even alleged to have been suffered by the petitioner by the fact that it was signed by the Under Secretary though it was heard by the Secretary, Local Self Government Department. Further, Ext. P13 is a speaking order. It explains the reasons for the decision reflected therein. That the petitioner was heard in person is stated therein and the contentions put forth by him have been examined and explained. The reasoning for arriving at the decision is thus clearly spelt out in Ext.P13. As regards the challenge against Ext.P12 and the amounts due, the learned Senior Counsel refers to Ext.P5 representation dated 15.10.2011 submitted by the petitioner to the Estate Officer and submits that the said representation belies the contentions now put forth. The reasoning for arriving at the decision is thus clearly spelt out in Ext.P13. As regards the challenge against Ext.P12 and the amounts due, the learned Senior Counsel refers to Ext.P5 representation dated 15.10.2011 submitted by the petitioner to the Estate Officer and submits that the said representation belies the contentions now put forth. The said representation specifically admits the taking in possession by the petitioner of the relevant rooms and the reference therein was only towards the expenses purportedly incurred by the petitioner towards carrying out some repairs therein. As regards the alleged absence of a lease agreement, the petitioner has not produced any legally reliable material to substantiate that he was not in beneficial occupation of the relevant shop rooms from 2005 to 2016. Admittedly the petitioner was evicted from the shop rooms only on 03.08.2016. Proceedings had already been initiated against the petitioner under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1968. Section 5 thereof relates to the eviction of unauthorised occupants. The power to dispose of property left in public buildings by unauthorised occupants and the method of disposing of the said property is specifically provided for in the said provision. The 2 nd and 3 rd respondents (Estate Officer) were entitled to proceed accordingly as the petitioner had not only failed to pay the rent arrears due as early as from 2005 but also continued to remain in occupation of the shop rooms un authorisedly. The recovery of rent and damages in respect of the building is stipulated in Section 8 of the said Act as has been empowered on the 2 nd respondent Estate Officer under Section 9. Thus the steps taken by the GCDA to evict the petitioner and to recover the rent and damages were as envisaged in law. The said proceedings have not been challenged by the petitioner by invoking the appellate provision in Section 10 of the said Act. The Petitioner had in Ext.R2 (a) admitted that due to unforeseen circumstances, he could not execute the formal licence deed though it has been corrected and sent to the GCDA and the same had been signed by the then Secretary of the GCDA. It has been assured in Ext.R2 (a) that all amounts due to the GCDA will be paid without any delay. The said assuarance was not kept by the petitioner. It has been assured in Ext.R2 (a) that all amounts due to the GCDA will be paid without any delay. The said assuarance was not kept by the petitioner. The purported cheques/ DDs issued by the petitioners had not been encashed and had been returned for valid reasons. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the huge amounts outstanding from the petitioner with respect to the relevant shop rooms have, over the years of the pendency of the litigation, further accumulated and have thus become even more substantial. As regards the request based on Ext.P30 representation preferred before the Chairman, GCDA, it is submitted that the same is only an attempt to further delay and protract the matter. The refusal and failure on the part of the petitioner to remit the amounts due and payable by him, has caused substantial loss to the GCDA and to the public exchequer and the petitioner had been deliberately protracting the matter under one pretext or another by filing representations, petitions etc. before the Government and by initiating litigations without any bonafides only for delaying the matter further. Ext. P30 representation is only one further attempt in the said direction with oblique motives. Hence it is prayed by the learned Senior Counsel for the GCDA that the WP (C) may be dismissed with exemplary costs. 11. The Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that Ext.P13 issued by the Local Self Government Department is valid and legal and had been issued in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and affording him an opportunity of being heard. She further submits that the submission that Ext.P13 G.O. suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and violation of natural justice since it had been issued by an officer other than the person who had heard the petitioner is devoid of legal merits. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Sudheer T. ( supra) and submits that it is now trite that ‘he who heard must decide’ is not set in stone and has to be applied and appreciated based on whether any injustice has occasioned to the concerned person. 12. The challenge in the WP is against Ext.P12 and Ext.P13. Ext. P12 is an order dated 18.09.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner. 12. The challenge in the WP is against Ext.P12 and Ext.P13. Ext. P12 is an order dated 18.09.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner. It specifically states that the allotment of the relevant rooms to the petitioner has been cancelled and calls on the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.1,81,01,924/- within 15 days. The rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner before the Government has been stated therein and he has been forewarned that if he fails to remit the amounts due, revenue recovery proceedings will follow. Ext.P13 is the order issued by the 1 st respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner challenging the amounts claimed by the 2 nd respondent with respect to the shop rooms. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P13 is unsustainable in law as it violates the principles of natural justice. The reason stated is that the petitioner was heard on 08.05.2015 by one official but the orders on such hearing were rendered by another official. Petitioner had been heard by the Secretary to the Local self- Government Dept., while Ext.P13 had been issued by the Undersecretary to the Government. This is projected as a serious flaw striking at the very root of Ext.P13 rendering it unsustainable in law. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents submitted that Ext.P13 had been issued specifically stating that ‘By Order of the Governor’ and no prejudice had been occasioned to the petitioner. Reliance is placed by the learned Senior Advocate on the dictum laid down in Sudheer T (supra) to substantiate the said contention. The learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the 1 st respondent, submitted that Ext.P13 was issued after a detailed hearing to the petitioner. It is thereafter that Ext.P13 had been rendered. The contention that Ext.P13 is a non-speaking order is refuted by the learned G.P. pointing out that Ext.P13 reveals a proper application of mind by the concerned officer. I find merit in the said submission. A perusal of Ext.P13 reveals that adequate and sufficient reasons covering the subject matter considered have been stated in Ext.P13. It not only states that the concerned parties were heard in person and that the Government had examined the whole matter in detail based on the reports received as per letters referred to therein. A perusal of Ext.P13 reveals that adequate and sufficient reasons covering the subject matter considered have been stated in Ext.P13. It not only states that the concerned parties were heard in person and that the Government had examined the whole matter in detail based on the reports received as per letters referred to therein. After examining the terms and conditions based on which rooms were allotted to the petitioner, it proceeds to conclude on valid and tenable reasons that there has been no illegality/ anomaly in fixing the rent of the shop rooms in possession of the petitioner. Finding thus Ext.P13 GO, concluded that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves no merit and was rejected. 13. As regards the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P13 suffers from the vice of non-compliance with natural justice, as it had been rendered by an official different from the person who had heard the petitioner, I note that the full Bench of this Court had in Sudheer T. V. (supra) held as follows: “ Now, the law is that unless prejudice is shown, violation of the principles of natural justice, ipso facto, will not be accepted as a ground for quashing a decision. The rules of natural justice are designed to advance justice and they cannot be allowed to be used as tools of oppression. If a decision is quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, even if the party impugning the order has absolutely no case on admitted and undisputed facts, it may cause irreparable injury and hardship to the opposite party with a cast-iron case. He will be unnecessarily dragged to defend the proceedings at the instance of a person with no case at all, but only for the reason of not providing an opportunity of hearing to him. For the failure of the Administrator, over whose actions the parties have no control, to hear one side, the other side may suffer irreparable injury, if the order is quashed only on the ground of violation of natural justice. So, when a party comes to the Court complaining that the principle, "he who hear must decide" was violated, those words cannot be taken as a "open sesame" for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the order concerned. So, when a party comes to the Court complaining that the principle, "he who hear must decide" was violated, those words cannot be taken as a "open sesame" for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the order concerned. This Court must examine whether the case was one requiring a hearing by words of mouth, for effective consideration of the grounds raised by the parties. The Court should also examine whether any prejudice has been pleaded and any material has been placed in support thereof.” The petitioner has not put forth any legally tenable contentions to prove that the decision rendered vide Ext.P13 is not objective. 14. It is the specific contention of the 2 nd respondent that though the petitioner had occupied the relevant rooms from 29.03.2005 onwards, no payment was made by him towards licence fee and other charges except an amount of Rs.1,35,100/- remitted towards the security deposit. The rent and security deposit were refixed as per the additional space allotted to the petitioner. Though a draft lease agreement had been issued to the petitioner, he did not execute the same. It is seen admitted by the petitioner in Ext.R 2 (a) that due to unforeseen circumstances, he could not execute the formal licence deed though it has been corrected and sent to the GCDA and the same had been signed by the then Secretary of the GCDA. After having thus failed to execute the lease agreement, which admittedly had been signed by the Secretary of GCDA and was awaiting the signature of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be seen to contend that the amounts claimed with respect to his occupation of the relevant premises especially the interest part thereof are unsustainable in law. The lease agreement which would have been the basic document that would reveal the rate of rent, the interest, penalty if any etc. could not be executed solely due to the admitted failure on the part of the petitioner. The said admission in Ext R2 (a) letter would strike the very root of the contentions put forth by the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner since he had refused to sign the lease agreement was called upon vide Ext.R2 (b) dated 07.07.2007 to participate in the ensuing tender. The said admission in Ext R2 (a) letter would strike the very root of the contentions put forth by the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner since he had refused to sign the lease agreement was called upon vide Ext.R2 (b) dated 07.07.2007 to participate in the ensuing tender. It is relevant to note that prior to Exts.P6 and P9, the GCDA had issued Ext.R2 (c) on 03.08.2011 calling upon the petitioner to remit Rs.29,83,870/- which was due towards arrears till 28.03.2010. It is much later thereafter that Ext.P6 and Ext.P9 calling upon him to pay arrears of rent of Rs.28,85,865/- and Rs.80,13,778/- are seen issued. They are dated 10.08.2012 and 24.09.2012 respectively. It is relevant to note that in Ext.P6, the deduction of Rs.98,005/- made to the earlier bill have been clearly pointed out. As regards the surprise registered by the petitioner as to how such a quantum jump in the figure could have happened within such short a span of time of one month, a perusal of the Ext.P6 would show that the same was for arrears of rent alone dehors the interest from 2005 whereas Ext.P9 had taken note of the increase in rent payable that was to be effected from time to time also including the accrued interest. This is validly explained in Ext.P14 Communication of the GCDA. As regards the contention that a larger amount has been expended by the petitioner in repairs while an amount of Rs.98,005/- alone had been deducted, it is noted that the same is not substantiated and the same has been disputed by the GCDA pointing out that the repairs were not carried out after complying with procedures as envisaged including supervision by its engineers. The explanation put forth by the GCDA is prima facie sustainable. The statutory authority has discharged its burden of proving that the demand put forth is valid and sustainable and that there is no perversity in its actions. The petitioner has not put forth any reliable evidence to substantiate that amounts due towards arrears of rent have been paid by him though he could not deny that the beneficial use and occupation of the rooms were with him for a long period from 2005 to 2016. The petitioner has not put forth any reliable evidence to substantiate that amounts due towards arrears of rent have been paid by him though he could not deny that the beneficial use and occupation of the rooms were with him for a long period from 2005 to 2016. In such a scenario, it is not for this court to go into the correctness and exactitude of the facts and figures raised by the parties while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. Further it is the specific case of the GCDA that not a penny had been paid by the petitioner towards the rent, other than the Rs.10 lakhs paid by the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court in Ext.P10. That too was paid not within the time period stipulated by this court. Though Ext.R 2 (e) extension was granted by this court, the same was not complied with by the petitioner. No material to show any substantial payment towards the huge arrears of rent due to the GCDA is produced. As regards. Exts.P22 to P27 which are copies of demand drafts stated to have been drawn by the petitioner towards payment of amounts due to the 2 nd respondent with respect to the occupation of the relevant rooms, the receipt of the said amounts are denied by the 2 nd respondent. This Court while exercising a jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot decide on the genuineness or not of the said documents or regarding the veracity of the statement that the said amounts have not been received. The same are disputed questions of fact which are beyond the purview of writ jurisdiction. 15. In view of the above, I note that Ext.P13 G.O. issued by the 1 st respondent cannot be termed illegal. Petitioner is bound to remit the amounts that are due and payable to the 2 nd respondent by virtue of his occupation of the relevant rooms of the 2 nd respondent in the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Ernakulam. W.P.(C) No.36503 of 2015 is thus dismissed. No costs. All interlocutory applications filed shall stand closed.