IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22803 of 2009(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ROSY, W/O.JOSE, MAZHUVANCHERY HOUSE, EDANAD, CHOVVARA, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.V.M.KURIAN MR.MATHEW B. KURIAN MR.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.K.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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