IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2007 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 WP(C).No. 18374 of 2004(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- R. GOPINATHAN, AGRI TOOLS, JETTY ROAD KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY PRASANNA KUMARI, WIFE OF R. GOPINATHAN, RESIDING AT AGRI TOOLS FROM KRISHNA INDUSTRIES, VADAKKUM BHAGOM CHERRY, KOLLAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI. JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM (ASSESSING OFFICER, AUTHORITY UNDER THE BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS ACT, 1996). 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER G.R.1, KOLLAM (ASSESSING OFFICER, AUTHORITY UNDER THE BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS ACT 1996). BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C). 18374/04 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF GO(Rt) NO. 1775/92/LAD DATED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 17.3.1992 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. BR(E) 363/91- 92 DATED 26.3.92 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL QUILON. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE G.O. (Rt) NO. 2541/LAD DATED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 4.7.1996 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. C2/1123/M1/XVI/25/02 DATED 17.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.3.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R1(a) : OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE. EXT. R1(b) : REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO ALO, KOLLAM. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. Acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.18374 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2007 JUDGMENT Although the petitioner seeks to challenge assessment under the Kerala Building and other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act 1996, what is challenged before me is Ext.P4 notice (mistakenly shown as Ext.P5 in the prayer portion of the writ petition), by which the petitioner has been directed to file returns under the Act. In spite of the above infirmities in the writ petition, I shall consider the contentions now raised before me by the petitioner on merits. 2. The petitioner’s contention is that the building constructed by the petitioner was completed on 30.5.1994 and the Kerala Building and other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 came into force only on 3.11.1995. Therefore according to the petitioner, the petitioner’s building could not have been assessed under the Act, which came into force subsequent to the completion of the building. In support of his case, the petitioner also relies on Ext.P3 Government order dated W.P.(c) No.18374/04 2 4.7.1996, which refers to the completion of the petitioner’s building as 30.5.1994. 3. The learned Government pleader opposes the writ petition. According to the learned Government pleader, the petitioner at no point of time contested the assessment on the ground that the petitioner had completed the building before coming into force of the Act. She would rely on Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) in support of her contentions. Ext.R1(a) is the occupancy certificate in respect of the petitioner’s building, which is issued on 24.3.1998, which refers to Licence No.362/97. Further she points out that by Ext.R1(b), the petitioner’s wife only requested for reduction of cess assessed and never disputed that the building was constructed after coming into force of the Act. 4. On a consideration of the rival arguments, I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned Government pleader. As I said, the only contention raised by the petitioner before me is that the building was constructed prior to coming into force of the Act. This is amply disproved by Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). There is absolutely no material before me to show that the petitioner contested the W.P.(c) No.18374/04 3 assessment on the ground that the completion of the building was before coming into force of the Act. In this connection it is pertinent to note that Ext.R1(a) completion certificate has been issued on 24.3.1998 and it refers to Licence No.362/97. Further it also specifically refers to an application for additional construction on 13.5.1997. In Ext.R1(b), there is not even a hint of any objection that the construction was completed before the appointed date. In view of such evidence, I am not inclined to rely on Ext.P3, which is dated 4.7.96. Further from Ext.P3 it is seen that it refers to permit No.363/91-92 whereas the occupancy certificate is in respect of Licence No.362/97. For all these reasons I do not find any merit in the contentions raised in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.18374/04 4