IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 30626 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.A. MATHEWS, S/O LATE SHRI P.M. ALEXAND ER, PUNTHALA JO VILLA, VADAKKEDATHUCAVU P.O., ADOOR BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. FINANCE STANDING COMMITTEE, ADOOR MUNICI PALITY, (REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN OF SAID STANDING COMMITTEE),ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.30626 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 28th February, 2008 JUDGMENT In this Writ Petition the grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the directions of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions issued under Ext.P3 are not being implemented by the Municipality. Under Ext.P3 the Tribunal set aside the order of the Finance Standing Committee of the Adoor Municipality dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the property tax assessment in respect of his building and directed the Finance Standing Committee to take a fresh decision on the appeal disclosing the grounds and basis for the decision after rendering a hearing opportunity to the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of specific directions in Ext.P3, the Finance Standing Committee has refused to reconsider the appeal submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter in the matter of remittance of property tax to the local authority. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Municipality and in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated as follows: “It is submitted that on the basis of Revision petition filed by the petitioner, was heard by giving him an opportunity to explain his W.P.C.No.30626/07 - 2 - grievances and taken depositions from him. Thereafter, the Finance Standing Committee with the assistance of the Municipal Office Staff visited the premises of the Punthala Shopping Centre and made enquiry with the people living in the vicinity of the shopping centre. The Standing Committee found some merit in the revision petition and considering the merit, annual tax was reduced as per Rules in respect of Building No.688, 691, 692, 693, 694 and 698. Besides this, Building No.690 and 697 were exempted from the tax. The tax reduction was granted within the frame work of the Rules and within the powers vested with the officer concerned. Therefore, it is submitted that reasonable tax reduction was already granted to the petitioner. As such the writ petition becomes infructuous and liable to be dismissed in limine.” 3. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Jacob P.Alex, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Varghese P.Thomas, counsel for the Municipality. 4. My attention was drawn by the counsel for the Municipality to the above quoted paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the directions of the Tribunal have been implemented by the Municipality. Mr.Jacob P.Alex, counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to Ext.P4 reply which was received by the petitioner in W.P.C.No.30626/07 - 3 - answer to a query by the petitioner as to what was the action which was taken by the Municipality in pursuance to the directions of the Tribunal in Ext.P3. In Ext.P4 what is stated is that the Finance Standing Committee have decided not to hear the appeal and reduce the tax since the petitioner is a chronic defaulter in the matter of remittance of property tax though he is collecting exorbitant rent from his tenants. 5. The directions in Ext.P3 are binding on the 1st respondent- Municipality and the 2nd respondent-Committee. The 2nd respondent- Committee is bound to obey all the directions in Ext.P3. It is clear on an analysis of the documents produced that the claim in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit cannot be with regard to a hearing subsequent to Ext.P3. I therefore allow the Writ Petition and direct the 2nd respondent-Committee to hear the petitioner on all the grounds he has raised in the revision petition and dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent shall be in conformity with the directions of the Tribunal. It should be a reasoned order and reference should be made in that order to the grounds raised. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No.30626/07 - 4 -