K.K. Viswambharan vs District Collector on 24 March, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 334 of 2008()


1. K.K. VISWAMBHARAN, S/O. KUNJAIDAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :24/03/2008

 O R D E R
                        H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J.
                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          WRIT APPEAL No. 334 of 2008
                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008.

                                          JUDGMENT

H.L.DATTU, CJ,

Levy of building tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax

Act and the Rules framed thereunder by the Tahsildar was the subject matter of an

appeal and the revision. The Tahsildar, the first appellate authority as well as the

revisional authority are of the opinion that the petitioner has completed the

construction of the building only in the year 2001. However, it is the case of the

petitioner that the construction of the building came to be completed sometime in

the year 1995.

2. The fact finding authority, after verification of all the documents

produced by the petitioner and also after site inspection, has come to the

conclusion that the construction was completed only in the year 2001.

3. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the facts

pleaded by the petitioner as well as the report of the Tahsildar and the orders

passed thereon, has come to the conclusion that the building in question was

completed by the petitioner only in the year 2001.

4. In a writ jurisdiction, this court can entertain the writ petition only

to find out whether in the decision making process there is any flaw or the decision

is contrary to the statutory provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in

a position to point out any flaw in the decision making process by the respondent

authorities.

W.A. 334/2008. 2

5. Judicial review is possible only to find out if there is any flaw in the

decision making process and not the decision itself. In the instant case since the

learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any flaw/error in the

decision making process, we do not think that the learned Single Judge has committed

any error while disposing of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be

rejected and it is rejected.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE

K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE

sb/DK.