IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27095 of 2008(A)
1. BISHOP OF KOLLAM, CATHOLIC DIOCESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ROY CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :17/09/2008
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No.27095 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
By Ext.P5, the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition,
the revision petition filed by the petitioner purported to be under Section
509 of the Municipalities Act has been returned stating that it is not
accompanied by receipts for payment of demand. Ext.P1 is the combined
demand for three buildings. A Division Bench decision of this court
reported in Fracies v. RDO, Fort Kochi (1989(1) KLT 50) is relied on. I
perused the decision of the Division Bench. That is a case under the Kerala
Building Tax Act. Building Tax Act provides for payment of tax in
instalments. It is in that context that the court held that upon payment of
instalment due, the appeal should be entertained. A perusal of Ext.P1 would
show that the petitioner is not permitted to pay the amount in instalments as
such. Petitioner has not pointed out any provision, which also contemplates
payment of tax in instalments. If that be so, the demand for payment in
Ext.P1 must be considered as demand in lumpsum. Accordingly, the
petitioner has not complied with the requirement of payment of tax under
sub section (11) of Section 509. This means that the appeal in law could not
be entertained and it was accordingly that the appeal came to be returned by
WPC. 27095/2008. 2
Ext.P5. In such circumstances, I find that Ext.P5 is valid and there is no
ground made out to interfere with Ext.P5. The writ petition fails and it is
dismissed.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb