IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14857 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MEENA KUMARI, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, 'HARISREE', LAKE VIEW ENCLAVE, MOUNTAIN ROAD, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA. 2. KRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.LATE K.SETHUMADHAVAN 'HARISREE', LAKE VIEW ENCLAVE, MOUNTAIN ROAD, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA. BY ADV. MR. SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT MR. K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: --------------- THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOCHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No.14857 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 order passed by the assessing authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act was subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P3 appeal before the respondent, which however was dismissed as belated vide Ext.P5 order, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The reason given by the respondent for not entertaining the statutory appeal, as discernible from Ext.P5 is that, the impugned order was passed serving the demand notice on the petitioner on 29.10.2008; whereas the appeal was “filed in the office” only on 03.12.2008, i.e. after one month and 6 days from the date of service of demand notice, which hence was not liable to be entertained, since it did not accompany any petition for condoning the delay. 3. Obviously, the reasoning given by the respondent in Ext.P5 cannot be held as correct, particularly in view of the fact that Ext.P3 memorandum of appeal was actually 'sent' by the petitioner by registered post to the respondent on 27.11.2008, as evident from Ext.P4 receipt regarding registration, issued by the postal authorities. This shows that the appeal was prepared and sent to the appellate authority properly within the prescribed time and it was never taken to WP (C) No. 14857 of 2009 : 2 : be filed in the office of the respondent on 3.12.2008 as mentioned in Ext.P5. That apart, the appeal, if at all were defective in any manner (for not supported by a petition for condoning the delay) it was a defect which ought to have been permitted to be cured by giving opportunity to the petitioner. Obviously, no notice whatsoever was issued from the office of the respondent, informing the petitioner of any date fixed for hearing the matter, even on the question of alleged delay and the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner, which hence is in contravention of all the known principles of natural justice. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P5 order cannot have existence any more and hence it is set aside. The respondent is hereby directed to consider Ext.P3 appeal afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with law. It will be open for the petitioner to cure the defect, if any. The appropriate orders as above shall be passed by the respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd