IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31211 of 2008(N)
1. A.V.MATHEW, VARAMBINAKATHU HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,REVENUE
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR,
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 31211 OF 2008 N
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P5(a), P8 and P9.
Exts.P7 and P7(a) are the assessment orders under the
Kerala Building Tax Act. But, by a mistake, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has challenged Exts.P5 and P5(a)
instead of Exts.P7 and P7(a). Ext.P8 is the order of the
Tahsildar imposing luxury tax. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner has right of revision under section 13 of the Building
Tax Act. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the view taken by the RDO cannot be
countenanced in law. He points out that the RDO has taken
the view that law does not treat the husband and wife as
different persons. I am sure that if he files a revision, he can
take a contention against this finding before the revisional
authority and the revisional authority will apply its mind to the
contention. In the face of the availability of an alternate
WPC.31211/08
: 2 :
remedy which cannot be, by no stretch of imagination,
considered as inadequate, I decline jurisdiction.
Writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to
pursue the alternate remedy available under section 13 of the
Act.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE