IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18675 of 2008(W)
1. T.SREEKUMAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY & OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PREMCHAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
=W.P.(C)=No.=18675=OF = = = = =
= = = = = =
2008 - W
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd July 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner seeks to quash Exts. P9 and P10 and a direction to
the 3rd respondent to rehear the appeal afresh in the light of Exts.
P4 to P6 is also sought for.
2. According to the petitioner, following Ext. P1 order of
exemption, a building having ground floor and first floor has been
constructed. This building was given numbers and the property tax
was also assessed. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner
obtained Ext. P3 order of exemption for construction of the second
floor and accordingly construction was completed.
3. Petitioner submits that thereafter Ext. P4 occupancy
certificate was issued and the building was also numbered, as is
seen from Ext.P5. The petitioner is also relying on Ext. P6 certificate
to contend that the second floor of the building was also assessed
to property tax. According to the petitioner, while everything
concerning the second floor of the building was thus regularised
W.P.(C) No. 18675 OF 2008
– 2 –
the then Secretary of the Municipality issued Ext. P7, making
allegation that the petitioner has unauthorisedly constructed the
second floor. Thereupon, Ext. P8 reply was given denying the
allegations and making reference to Exts. P4 to P6 to contend that
the construction was legitimate.
4. Despite the reply given by him, the Secretary re-assessed
the tax as per Ext. P9. Against Ext. P9 order, the petitioner filed an
appeal to the 3rd respondent which was disposed of by Ext.P10
Order. According to the petitioner, even in Ext. P10 the fact that the
construction was legitimate or Exts.P4 to P6 documents were not
been adverted to. Against Ext. P10, petitioner filed Ext. P11
representation to the 2nd respondent and filed this writ petition
seeking the relief mentioned above.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
Shri. B. Krishnamani, the counsel who entered appearance on behalf
of the respondents.
6. The main contention that is urged before me by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that while reassessing tax as per Ext. P9
and confirming the said order by Ext.P10, the authorities did not
W.P.(C) No. 18675 OF 2008
– 3 –
make advertance to Exts. P4 to P6. A reading of Exts.P9 and P10,
shows that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P8
have been adverted to, either by the original authority or by the
appellate authority who have only filled up certain unfilled portions
of printed formats. Petitioner is right in his contention that if Ext. P4
occupancy certificate, Ext. P5 possession certificate and Ext. P6
certificate to the effect that the second floor of the building has been
assessed to property tax, have not been adverted to by the
authorities concerned. In my view, if these documents were adverted
to, at least by the appellate authority, the conclusion may not have
been the same. However, without pronouncing finally on this aspect,
I feel, this is a matter to be reconsidered by the appellate authority.
For this reason, Ext. P10 order will stand quashed and the 3rd
respondent shall reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner against
Ext. P9 order with notice to the petitioner and adverting to the
relevant materials that are produced by the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-