IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21410 of 2010(A)
1. MOIDUPPA HAJI, S/O.MAMMU KUTTY HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR (ASSESSING AUTHORITY
4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :09/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
……………………………………………………………………
W.P.(C) No. 21410 OF 2010
……………………………………………………………….
Dated this the 9th July , 2010
J U D G M E N T.
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P4 order
rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner before
the second respondent, challenging Ext. P1 assessment order
passed by the third respondent under the Kerala Building Tax
Act .
2. Earlier, when the statutory appeal was rejected, the
matter was taken up before the first respondent /District
Collector by filing a Revision Petition, which led to Ext. P2
order, whereby the order passed by the appellate authority was
set aside and the matter was remanded to the second
respondent permitting the petitioner to cure the defects and to
have the appeal heard on merits. Inspite of the remand order,
the petitioner could not cure the defects on time and in the said
circumstances, the second respondent has issued Ext. P4 order,
whereby the appeal was rejected again, stating that the defect
still subsists.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
lapses on the part of the petitioner are never wilful but because
W.P.(C) No. 21410 OF 2010
2
of some unforeseen circumstances. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the entire defects will be cured within
three days and that one more opportunity might be given to the
petitioner to have the appeal considered on merits.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well
4. Taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds it fit and
proper to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to have
the appeal considered and decided on merits. Accordingly, Ext.P4
passed by the second respondent is set aside and the petitioner
is directed to cure all the defects noted by the second respondent
within one week, on which event, the appeal shall be considered
and final orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk