IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27095 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ BISHOP OF KOLLAM, CATHOLIC DIOCESE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, FR.GEORGE REBEIRO, FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATOR, CATHOLIC BISHOP'S HOUSE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: --------------------- THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED. 2. KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFI CE, KOLLAM. ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.11800/2008 DATED 17.9.2008. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR ADDL.R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.27095 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT By Ext.P5, the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, the revision petition filed by the petitioner purported to be under Section 509 of the Municipalities Act has been returned stating that it is not accompanied by receipts for payment of demand. Ext.P1 is the combined demand for three buildings. A Division Bench decision of this court reported in Fracies v. RDO, Fort Kochi (1989(1) KLT 50) is relied on. I perused the decision of the Division Bench. That is a case under the Kerala Building Tax Act. Building Tax Act provides for payment of tax in instalments. It is in that context that the court held that upon payment of instalment due, the appeal should be entertained. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the petitioner is not permitted to pay the amount in instalments as such. Petitioner has not pointed out any provision, which also contemplates payment of tax in instalments. If that be so, the demand for payment in Ext.P1 must be considered as demand in lumpsum. Accordingly, the petitioner has not complied with the requirement of payment of tax under sub section (11) of Section 509. This means that the appeal in law could not be entertained and it was accordingly that the appeal came to be returned by WPC. 27095/2008. 2 Ext.P5. In such circumstances, I find that Ext.P5 is valid and there is no ground made out to interfere with Ext.P5. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb