IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 334 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25743/2003 & R.P.725/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------------- K.K. VISWAMBHARAN, S/O. KUNJAIDAN, KOTTEKKAT HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMMURI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR-3. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 334 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, Levy of building tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder by the Tahsildar was the subject matter of an appeal and the revision. The Tahsildar, the first appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are of the opinion that the petitioner has completed the construction of the building only in the year 2001. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the construction of the building came to be completed sometime in the year 1995. 2. The fact finding authority, after verification of all the documents produced by the petitioner and also after site inspection, has come to the conclusion that the construction was completed only in the year 2001. 3. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the facts pleaded by the petitioner as well as the report of the Tahsildar and the orders passed thereon, has come to the conclusion that the building in question was completed by the petitioner only in the year 2001. 4. In a writ jurisdiction, this court can entertain the writ petition only to find out whether in the decision making process there is any flaw or the decision is contrary to the statutory provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any flaw in the decision making process by the respondent authorities. W.A. 334/2008. 2 5. Judicial review is possible only to find out if there is any flaw in the decision making process and not the decision itself. In the instant case since the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any flaw/error in the decision making process, we do not think that the learned Single Judge has committed any error while disposing of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb/DK.