IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36484 of 2008(R)
1. P.A.SAMUEL, PLAMKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PATHANAMTHITTA.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MYLAPRA VILLAGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :19/12/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 36484 OF 2008 R
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was an assessee under the Kerala Motor
Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act. Petitioner challenged the
assessment orders before this Court and it culminated in Ext.P1
Judgment. Petitioner challenges Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is stated to be
an order issued by the second respondent Tahsildar, calling upon
the petitioner to remit certain sums which are stated to be for
various years. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4. Complaint of the
petitioner is that no revised assessment as directed by this Court
in Ext.P1 was passed and Ext.P3 is vitiated. It is the case of the
petitioner that an enquiry notice was issued by the first
respondent directing the petitioner to appear on 13.10.2008 and
the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and the
hearing was adjourned and he was instructed to appear as and
when he pleases. It is stated that the petitioner had contacted the
WPC.36484/08 R 2
first respondent on a number of occasions and enquired over
phone also. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of
the first respondent, however, points out that the petitioner was
actually not present on 13.10.2008 and, in fact, an order has
already been passed. He further points out that there was no
direction as such by this Court in Ext.P1 Judgment to hear the
petitioner. But still, a notice was indeed issued seeking to give
an opportunity of hearing. Whatever that be, the fact remains
that an order has already been passed. In such circumstances, I
feel that the petitioner can be permitted to challenge the said
order and the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing
communication of the order to the petitioner and it is for the
petitioner, if aggrieved, to work out the remedies available in
law, if so advised. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
directing the first respondent to communicate the order to the
petitioner within a period of one week from today. The interim
WPC.36484/08 R 3
order passed by this Court will continue for two weeks from
today.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge