V.V.Aboobacker Haji vs The State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1039 of 2009()


1. V.V.ABOOBACKER HAJI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY,

3. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, THE KERALA FINANCIAL

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

6. DAVID @ THAVU, S/O.EYYAPPAN,

7. ROY, S/O.DAVID,

8. CHARLY, S/O.DAVID,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :25/05/2009

 O R D E R
             S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.
                  ------------------------------------------
                       W.A. No.1039 of 2009
                  ------------------------------------------
              Dated, this the 25th day of May, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ

petition was filed challenging Ext.P1 demand notice for property

tax. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without

prejudice to the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the matter before

the appellate forum. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for

the Municipality submits that Ext.P2 can be treated as an appeal.

2. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the writ

appeal directing the appellate forum to consider Ext.P2 with notice

to the petitioner, 4th respondent and respondents 6 to 8 and pass

appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period

of two months from the date of production of a copy of this

judgment. The appellant will furnish a copy of this judgment

along with a copy of the memorandum of writ appeal to

W.A.No.1039 of 2009

– 2 –

respondents 6 to 8 also. We make it clear that we have not

adverted to the various contentions and hence all the questions are

left open. We also make it clear that it will be open to the

appellant to remit the current tax and the pendency of the dispute

referred to in the writ appeal shall not stand in the way of the

Municipality accepting current tax as offered by the appellant.

S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice

Kurian Joseph,
Judge
vns