IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16004 of 2010(A)
1. ANNAM, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.POULOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, TAHSILDAR,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :29/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 16004 of 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 29th June , 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenging the assessment of building tax under Section
5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, the petitioner had approached
the statutory appellate authority by filing appeal, after remitting
the first quarter of the demand ordered to be effected as per
the impugned assessment order. The appeal was ordered to be
posted for hearing on 10.03.2008, on which date, the petitioner
could not turn up before the first respondent. Subsequently
Ext.P3 application was preferred on 14.03.2008 seeking for a
posting on any date after 17.03.2008 and to have the matter
finalised, giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Inspite of this, Ext.P4 order was passed by the first respondent
on ‘02.06.2008’ simply dismissing the appeal stating that the
petitioner did not turn up for hearing, which in turn was
subjected to challenge by Ext.P5 statutory revision before the
W.P.(C) No. 16004 of 2010
2
third respondent, even though the same did not turn to be fruitful
having ended in dismissal ordered by the third respondent vide
Ext. P6. The petitioner is aggrieved of the above orders passed
by the assessing authority, appellate authority and the revisional
authority followed by Ext. P7 notice issued under the Revenue
Recovery Act.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
unwarranted haste has been shown by the first respondent in
passing Ext. P4 rejecting the appeal for default, despite the fact
that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 petition seeking to
condone the absence of the petitioner on 10.03.2008 and
seeking for a posting on any day after 17.03.2008.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, as narrated in
the Writ Petition and also as projected by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner with reference to the contents of Ext.P8
medical certificate, this Court finds it fit and proper to give one
more opportunity to the petitioner to have the proceedings
finalised by the first respondent in the appeal. Accordingly,
W.P.(C) No. 16004 of 2010
3
Exts.P4 and P6 are set aside and the first respondent is directed
to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner and pass final
orders on merits, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a
copy of the judgment before the first respondent for pursuing
further steps. It is made clear that till the proceedings are
finalised as above, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7
shall be kept in abeyance .
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk