Rosy vs The District Collector on 11 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22803 of 2009(U)


1. ROSY, W/O.JOSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE TAHSILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KURIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :11/08/2009

 O R D E R
                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ........................................................................
                 W.P.(C) No. 22803 OF 2009
             .........................................................................
                     Dated this the 11th August, 2009


                                 J U D G M E N T

Challenging imposition of Building Tax under the relevant

provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, vide Ext. P1 passed by

the third respondent, the petitioner filed statutory appeal before

the second respondent, who passed Ext. P2 order confirming the

same.

2. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner

preferred statutory revision as borne by Ext. P3, which led to

Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent holding that the

petitioner had not turned up for hearing on the scheduled day at

the scheduled time, (i.e. at 2.30 p.m. on 08.07.2009), which is

sought to be intercepted in the present Writ Petition stating that

the matter might be permitted to be contested on merits.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there

was absolutely no wilful default or deliberate negligence on the

W.P.(C) No. 22803 OF 2009

2

part of the petitioner in not being present before the revisional

authority on the date of hearing. The explanation offered vide

Ext. P5 is that, by the time the learned Counsel reached the

office of the first respondent, it was a little late, because of the

traffic block and in the said circumstance, the revisional

authority had already passed the impugned order (Ext.P4)

rejecting the revision petition ex parte. The petitioner had filed

Ext. P5 application on the very same day, i.e., 08.07.2009,

pointing out the actual facts and figures, simultaneously

praying for an opportunity to have the matter reconsidered on

the merits.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

5. The case projected by the petitioner in the Writ Petition

as to the sequence of events appears to be genuine and

palatable, particularly when Ext. P5 petition filed before the first

respondent very much bears the seal of the first respondent,

showing the date of its receipt as 08.07.2009.

6. In the said circumstances, this Court finds it fit and

proper to have the matter contested on merits. Accordingly,

W.P.(C) No. 22803 OF 2009

3

Ext.P4 order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to

consider Ext. P3 Revision Petition on merits, in accordance with

law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within one month from

today. It is made clear that till such appropriate orders are

passed on Ext.P3, all further proceedings to realise the amount,

stated as due from the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk