IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18374 of 2004(K)
1. R.GOPINATHAN, AGRI TOOLS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM
3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER G.R.1,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/12/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.18374 OF 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2007
JUDGMENT
Although the petitioner seeks to challenge assessment
under the Kerala Building and other Construction Workers’
Welfare Cess Act 1996, what is challenged before me is Ext.P4
notice (mistakenly shown as Ext.P5 in the prayer portion of the
writ petition), by which the petitioner has been directed to file
returns under the Act. In spite of the above infirmities in the writ
petition, I shall consider the contentions now raised before me by
the petitioner on merits.
2. The petitioner’s contention is that the building
constructed by the petitioner was completed on 30.5.1994 and
the Kerala Building and other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess
Act, 1996 came into force only on 3.11.1995. Therefore
according to the petitioner, the petitioner’s building could not
have been assessed under the Act, which came into force
subsequent to the completion of the building. In support of his
case, the petitioner also relies on Ext.P3 Government order dated
W.P.(c) No.18374/04 2
4.7.1996, which refers to the completion of the petitioner’s
building as 30.5.1994.
3. The learned Government pleader opposes the writ
petition. According to the learned Government pleader, the
petitioner at no point of time contested the assessment on the
ground that the petitioner had completed the building before
coming into force of the Act. She would rely on Exts.R1(a)
and R1(b) in support of her contentions. Ext.R1(a) is the
occupancy certificate in respect of the petitioner’s building,
which is issued on 24.3.1998, which refers to Licence
No.362/97. Further she points out that by Ext.R1(b), the
petitioner’s wife only requested for reduction of cess assessed
and never disputed that the building was constructed after
coming into force of the Act.
4. On a consideration of the rival arguments, I am
inclined to agree with the contention of the learned
Government pleader. As I said, the only contention raised by
the petitioner before me is that the building was constructed
prior to coming into force of the Act. This is amply disproved
by Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). There is absolutely no material
before me to show that the petitioner contested the
W.P.(c) No.18374/04 3
assessment on the ground that the completion of the building
was before coming into force of the Act.
In this connection it is pertinent to note that Ext.R1(a)
completion certificate has been issued on 24.3.1998 and it
refers to Licence No.362/97. Further it also specifically refers
to an application for additional construction on 13.5.1997. In
Ext.R1(b), there is not even a hint of any objection that the
construction was completed before the appointed date. In
view of such evidence, I am not inclined to rely on Ext.P3,
which is dated 4.7.96. Further from Ext.P3 it is seen that it
refers to permit No.363/91-92 whereas the occupancy
certificate is in respect of Licence No.362/97. For all these
reasons I do not find any merit in the contentions raised in
the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c) No.18374/04 4