Kerala High Court
Asmabi vs The Principal, Medical College … on 22 July, 2026
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2026 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1948
OP(C) NO. 367 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.01.2024 IN CMA NO.46 OF
2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, KOZHIKODE
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2023 IN IA 8/2023
IN OS NO.550 OF 2022 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT ,KOZHIKODE-II
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
ASMABI
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. KOMU. P, METHALERIPARAMBATH HOUSE,
UMMALATHUR, P.O. MEDICAL COLLEGE,
SECRETARY FOOD STORM CATERING SERVICE
A KUDUMBASREE UNIT CORPORATION
WARD NO 22, KOVOOR, NELLIKODE VILLAGE
KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT,
PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI
KUM. K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN
SMT.KEERTHY JOHNSON
SMT.POOJA JOSE
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
2
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL
MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
NELLICODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
3 DISTRICT MISSION CO-ORDINATOR
KUDUMBASREE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
BY SRI S. UNNIKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.04.2026, ALONG WITH OP(C).388/2024, THE COURT ON 22.07.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2026 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1948
OP(C) NO. 388 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.01.2024 IN CMA NO.48 OF
2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, KOZHIKODE
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2023 IN IA 3/2022 IN
OS NO.550 OF 2022 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-II,
KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
ASMABI
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. KOMU. P, METHALERIPARAMBATH HOUSE,
UMMALATHUR, PO MEDICAL COLLEGE,
SECRETARY,
FOOD STORM CATERING SERVICE,
A KUDUMBASREE UNIT,
CORPORATION WARD NO 22,
KOVOOR, NELLIKODE VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI
KUM. K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN
SMT.KEERTHY JOHNSON
SMT.POOJA JOSE
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
4
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, PO MEDICAL COLLEGE,
NELLICODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
2 STATE OF KERALA
CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION PO,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
3 DISTRICT MISSION COORDINATOR
KUDUMBASREE, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
BY SRI S. UNNIKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.04.2026,ALONG WITH OP(C).367/2024, THE COURT ON
22.07.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
5
T.R.RAVI, J.
------------------------------------
O.P.(C)Nos.367 & 388 of 2024
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2026
JUDGMENT
OP(C)No.367 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order
dated 12.01.2024 in CMA No.46 of 2023 of the Additional District
Court-I, Kozhikode, filed against the order dated 21.2.2023 in
I.A.No.8 of 2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.550 of 2022 of the
Principal Munsiff Court, Kozhikode. OP(C) No.388 of 2024 has
been filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2024 in CMA No.48 of
2023 and I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.550 of 2022 . Parties are
referred to based on their status in the suit.
2. O.S.No.550 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff
seeking a declaration that she is entitled to continue the running
of a cafeteria named “Food Storm Catering Service” in the garden
area of Government Medical College Campus, Kozhikode and for a
permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
6
officials and men from evicting or causing any hindrance to the
smooth running of the cafeteria. I.A.No.3 of 2022 was filed
seeking an interim prohibitory injunction restraining the
defendants from dispossessing/evicting the plaintiff and her
associates from the plaint schedule cafeteria. An ad interim
injunction was granted by the court on 27.09.2022, valid until
29.10.2022; on 29.10.2022, the order was extended until further
orders. I.A.No.8 of 2023 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking action against the 1 st
defendant for wilfully disobeying the ad interim injunction passed
in I.A.No.3 of 2022.
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The cafeteria was established by the plaintiff in 2018 with
permission from the 1st defendant and pursuant to the order of the
3rd defendant. The plaintiff is the Secretary of the Kudumbasree
Unit functioning at Ward No.22 of Kozhikode Corporation. The
permission was granted for a period of 2 years. An agreement was
executed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant on
08.05.2018. Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
CNR : KLHC0108215720242026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
7functioning of the cafeteria was suspended for a long period, and it
resumed after the pandemic subsided. The period originally
granted was extended. While so, the 1st defendant invited fresh
quotations to run the cafeteria. According to the petitioner, she
was the only eligible applicant pursuant to the tender that was
floated. It is stated that on 20.09.2022, the petitioner came to
know that the defendants were attempting to evict the petitioner
from the plaint schedule cafeteria, which resulted in the filing of
the suit.
4. The 1st defendant contended that the period of the
agreement was extended till 31.12.2021, considering the COVID-
19 pandemic situation, with a condition to pay an enhanced licence
fee. It is stated that the plaintiff violated the terms and conditions
and started preparing food items in the cafeteria on behalf of an
outside catering business. It is stated that from 01.01.2022, the
cafeteria is being run by the plaintiff without any permission and
that the plaintiff does not have a food safety license to run the
cafeteria. It is stated that pursuant to the tender, 10 Kudumbasree
units participated, and one Abhaya Kudumbasree was the highest
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
8
bidder with a quotation of ₹91,000/- as against the quotation of
₹26,800/- of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner’s
position among the bidders is eighth. In I.A.No.8 of 2023, the case
of the plaintiff was that on 26.12.2022, when the interim order
was in force, the 1st defendant denied access to the plaintiff and
her staff and forcefully obstructed them from opening the
cafeteria. It is also stated that the 1 st defendant is not issuing the
necessary consent letter to obtain a food safety licence. The 1 st
defendant resisted I.A.No.8 of 2023 by contending that the 1 st
defendant had not made any complaint before the Food Safety
Department, and the Food Safety Department had, as part of a
statewide action against the storage and sale of contaminated food
items, visited the cafeteria. It was contented that the 1 st
defendant does not have any control over the Food Safety
Department. The trial court on 21.2.2023 passed an order in
I.A.No.3 of 2022 confirming the interim prohibitory injunction
ordered on 27.09.2022. On the same day, the court also passed
an order in I.A.No. 8 of 2023 in I.A.No. 3 of 2022, attaching one-
fourth of the salary of the 1 st respondent for a period of 3 months
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
9
from March 2023 for violation of the interim order. The matter
was taken up in appeal by the respondents in CMA Nos.46 and 48
of 2023. On 12.01.2024, by a common order, the two appeals
were allowed. The Appellate Court found that Exhibit A11 is only a
licence to run the cafeteria and does not prima facie indicate that
exclusive possession has been handed over to the plaintiff. The
court found that the licence by its nature is a revocable one under
Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and that the plaintiff
does not have a case that the licence is revoked. The court held
that the temporary injunction granted is not legally sustainable,
since a licensee, on revocation of his license, is only entitled to a
reasonable time to leave the property and remove any goods he
had been allowed to place therein. On the question of violation of
the interim order, the court found that, except for oral assertions
by the plaintiff, there is no evidence on record to show that the 1 st
defendant violated the injunction order. The court found that, on
the facts, it was evident that the Food Safety Officer had
conducted an inspection of the cafeteria and issued notice stating
that the cafeteria could not be run without an FSSAI registration.
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
10
It was hence found that in the above circumstances, it cannot be
stated that the 1st respondent had violated the interim order. In
the above circumstances, the order in I.A.No.8 of 2023 was also
set aside. It is against the said orders in I.A.No.3 of 2022 and
I.A.No.8 of 2023 that these original petitions have been filed.
5. The main contention raised is that the respondents
cannot dispossess or evict the petitioner except by following the
due process of law, particularly since the petitioner continued to
remain in the property for an additional 2 years beyond the
expiration of the licence agreement. It is contended that the
appellate order is in effect, rejecting the primary relief in the main
suit itself.
6. I have heard the counsel on either side.
7. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a Division
Bench of this court in Hamza v. Thirunavaya Grama Panchayat
[2015 SCC Online Ker. 22587] and the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Corporation of Calicut v. K.
Sreenivasan [AIR 2002 SC 2051], State of UP & Ors. v. Lalji
Tandon (Died) through LRs [(2004) 1 SCC 1] and Aggarwal
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
11
& Modi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal
Council [(2007) 8 SCC 75]. In Corporation of Calicut
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a case under
the provisions of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that though a licensee does not acquire any interest in the
property by virtue of grant of licence in his favour in relation to
any immovable property, once the authority to occupy and use the
property is granted in his favour by way of licence, he continues to
exercise that right so long as the authority has not expired or has
not been determined for any reason whatsoever. The Court held
that the licensee acquires a right to remain in occupation so long
as the licence is not revoked and he is not evicted in accordance
with law or otherwise. The principles laid down in the above
judgment will not apply to this case, which is a suit filed by the
licensee on the allegation of an attempt at forceful eviction, which,
in effect, pre-empts the licensor from taking any legal steps for
evicting the licensee. In Lalji Tandon (supra), the Court was
considering a case of occupancy pursuant to a lease. The
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
12
principles laid down cannot be applied in the case of a license. In
Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (supra), the case was one of
lease of property by the Municipal Corporation and not a case of a
licensee holding on to the property after the period of license. The
principles laid down therein also cannot be applied to the facts of
this case. In Hamza (supra), the Division Bench of this Court was
considering a case where the Panchayat had taken steps to evict
the licensee from the licensed premises. That was a case where
the steps for eviction were taken without notice to the licensees.
The court found that eviction without notice was illegal and
arbitrary. However, in the said case, the appellants before the
court had already been evicted. As there was no current license
agreement, the prayer for repossession was rejected by the
Division Bench and the appellants were only permitted to remove
their articles from the shop rooms. In the case at hand, the
question is whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case
warranting the grant of an injunction. To decide the question of a
prima facie case, one has to look into the nature of possession.
Admittedly, the plaintiff was in possession of the premises based
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
13
on a license, and the period of the license had also expired. It is
also admitted that the respondents had taken steps for the
auctioning of the right to conduct the cafeteria, and the petitioner
had also participated in said auction. The facts revealed would
show that the petitioner was placed only in the eighth position
among the bidders. The petitioner cannot have a case that her
licence can never be revoked. As such, there can be no prima facie
case against eviction. The case, if at all, can only be against
eviction without following the due process of law. Hence, even if
an injunction is to be granted, it can be operational only till steps
in accordance with the law are taken for evicting the petitioner. In
the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with
the order whereby the injunction stood vacated. As far as the
order on the application regarding the violation of the injunction is
concerned, the Appellate Court has given sufficient reasons for
vacating the order. The reasons stated did not warrant an
interference. The 1st respondent cannot be found guilty if action is
taken by the Food Safety Authority against the petitioner.
8. Yet another aspect that was argued was that the
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
14
respondents are trying to forcefully evict the petitioner by stopping
the electricity supply. On this aspect also, the respondents contend
that there was an electrical mishap which occurred due to excess
load in the cafeteria, and it was not a positive action of cutting the
electricity. It was also submitted that the petitioners were not
paying the electricity charges. Those aspects need not be gone
into in these original petitions, wherein the validity of the order of
the appellate court alone is under challenge.
The original petitions fail and are dismissed.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
dsn/pn
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
15
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 367 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.53/2020
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 08-05-
2018 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-12-2021
MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED
BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.3/2022 IN O.S.550/2022
DATED 27/09/2022 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT-
II, KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO IA
NO.3/2022 IN O.S.550/2022
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/02/2023 IN
IA NO.3/2022 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
COURT-II, KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.8/2023 IN
I.A.3/2022 IN O.S.550/2022 DATED 03-01-
2023 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT-II,KOZHIKODE
Exhibit 9 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO IA
NO. 8/2023 IN I.A.3/2022 IN O.S.550/2022
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/02/2023 IN
I.A. NO. 8/2023 IN I.A.3/2022 IN
O.S.550/2022 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
COURT-I, KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CMA.46/2023 BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P12 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT
IN C.M.A 46/2023 DATED 12/01/2024 BEFORE
THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-I, KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
GMCKKD/5368/2021-D1 DATED 01-02-2024 FROM
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
16
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO.388 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OS NO. 550/2022 BEFORE
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT -II, KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 08-05-
2018 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-12-2021
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED
BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.3/2022 DATED
27/09/2022
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO IA
NO.3/2022
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/02/2023 IN
IA NO.3/2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 8/2023 IN
I.A.3/2022 IN O.S.550/20222
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO IA
NO. 8/2023
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 8 /2023
DATED 21/02/2023
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CMA NO.48/2023
Exhibit P12 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT
IN C.M.A 48/2023 DATED 12/01/2024
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT TAKEN BY THE
PETITIONER FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/-
IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
16.03.2026
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
19.03.2026 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 23-03-
2026 MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED
27.03.2026 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
CNR : KLHC010821572024
2026:KER:54271
OP(C) Nos. 367 & 388 of 2024
17
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION
STATEMENTS OF CAFETERIA FROM THE MONTH OF
JANUARY 2022 TO AUGUST 2022 FROM ASSISTANT
ENGINEER, PWD ELECTRICAL SECTION NO.III,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, KOZHIKODE TO THE
PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE KOZHIKODE
COMMUNICATED TO THE SECRETARY, FOOD STORM
CAFETERIA FOR PAYMENT
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING
PAYMENT OF RS. 5500 TOWARDS CAMPUS
BEAUTIFICATION FUND, GOVT. MEDICAL
COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE RECEIVED FROM
KUDUMBASREE CAFETERIA RENT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT
DATED 05/03/2026
Exhibit R1 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPORT DATED
12/03/2026
