IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29456 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.N.THULASIDAS, ELANJICKAL HOUSE, MANGARAM, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. SMT SMITHA SUKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)No.29456 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.17.6.2008. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1094/08 DATED 18.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS DATED 23.6.2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE vgd S.SIRI JAGAN ----------------------------- WP(C) No.29456 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner in this writ petition is the registered owner of a property. The petitioner wanted to pay basic tax in respect of that property. The 3rd respondent refused to accept tax on the ground that there is an attachment pending on the property by a Civil Court. According to the petitioner the said attachment is in a suit between the petitioner and another private party in respect of which the state has no role. By accepting tax the Government is not in any way affected. If the tax is not paid that would be a charge on the property itself for which the petitioner is answerable. Therefore the 3rd respondent cannot refuse to accept basic tax in respect of the property is the contention raised by the petitioner. He therefore seeks the following reliefs: “ (a) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent Gramapanchayath to take appropriate action against the 5th respondent who has been running industrial units illegally and without obtaining licences under the Dangerous and Offencsive Trades and Factories Act or any other provisions oflaw for the time being in force. (b) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent Gramapanchayath to take appropriate action against the 5th respondent who has been running lodging houses illegally and without obtaining licences under the provisions of Travancore Cochin Public Health Act 1955, or under any other provisions of law for the time being in force. © a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent Gramapanchayath not to grant licences or registration to the 5th respondent for running factories and workshops or any other industrial units under the Provisions of Dangerous and Offencsive Trades and Factories Act or any other provisions of law without meeting or complying with the provisions W.P.CNo.29456/2008 2 under the respective Acts or the provisions of law for the time being in force. Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories Act. (d)a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent Gramapanchayath to make an enquiry as regards the unlawful and illegal activities being committed by the 5th repondent pursuant to Exhibit P1 and P6 and take appropriate action based on such enquiry. (e) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to make enquiries as regards the unlawful and illegal activities being committed by the 5th repondent pursuant to Exhibit P2 and P4 and take appropriate action against the 5th respondent based on such enquiry. (f) granting such other relief or reliefs as are prayed for by the Petitioner during the course of the writ petition and which are deemed necessary by the court.” 2. I have heard the Government Pleader also. 3. Admittedly the Government has no claim in respect of the property. The attachment is at the instance of a private individual. As such by accepting tax the state is not in any way prejudiced. Acceptance of tax is not also evidence of title to the property . Acceptance of tax will not effect the attachment order in any manner. As such the 3rd respondent is duty bound to accept the basic tax in respect of the property. Accordingly this WP(C) is disposed of with the following directions: W.P.CNo.29456/2008 3 Respondents shall see that the 3rd respondent accepts tax in respect of the property in question namely 17 ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 234/30, 234/31 & 234/34 in Konni Village as and when tendered by the petitioner. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE vgd