IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8591 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.MOHAMMED ALI HAJI, AGED 70, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, PROPRIETOR, K.P.M.REGENCY, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKADN III VILLAGE, KOPPAM DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ WP (C) NO. 8591 OF 2010 ............................................ Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T ≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ The case brought out by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is about the unending litigation necessitated with regard to the assessment of building tax. It is stated that the respondents are simply avoiding the core issue, with reference to the actual facts and figures brought to light from the part of the petitioner, but for sticking to their stand, that the entire portion of the building is liable to reckoned for computing the 'plinth area'. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the construction was effected by the petitioner prior to the appointed day, as very much discernible from the materials already produced, which however have not been properly adverted to, by the Assessing Authority or by the WP (C) NO. 8591 OF 2010 2 Appellate Authority, while passing the impugned orders. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, that despite the specific challenge raised against the Assessment Order by filing Statutory Appeal, the same has been simply rejected by the Appellate Authority as per 'one line' order, vide Exhibit P12. Absolutely no reasons have been stated by the Appellate Authority in Exhibit P12, but for stating that interference is declined in view of the facts mentioned in the order of the Thahsildar dated 14-12-2009. 3. Heard the Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the materials on record, it does not require to have any second thought to hold that Exhibit P12 is not a 'speaking order' at all. The only reason stated by the Appellate Authority to reject the appeal as mentioned herein before is, “in view of the facts mentioned in the order passed by the Thahsildar”. WP (C) NO. 8591 OF 2010 3 Whether the discussion of the facts made by the Thahsildat/the Assessing Authority as well as the application of law with reference to the facts involved are correct or sustainable, has not been examined by the Appellate Authority and for this reason, it cannot be said that there is no proper application of mind at all. That apart, the necessity to pass 'speaking orders' has always been highlighted by Courts including in the verdict passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Mayor Simon Vs. Advocate General, Kerala and Others (1975 KLT 78). 5. In the above circumstances, Exhibit P12 order passed by the 2nd respondent is not correct or sustainable. Accordingly, Exhibit P12 is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter on merits, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall also conduct a personal inspection of the building in WP (C) NO. 8591 OF 2010 4 question to ascertain the actual facts and figures and to arrive at a conclusion, whether the data with regard to the 'plinth area' drawn by the 3rd respondent/ Assessing Authority is correct or sustainable. Final orders shall be passed after taking note of the entire facts and circumstances, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. //True copy// PA to Judge rkc