IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20703 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.P.MOIDUTTY,S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, KONDOTTYPARAMBAN HOUSE, PULLARA, VALLUVAMBRAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 679 322. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 121. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POOKOTTUR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 517. R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.20703/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 5A OF THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED,18/8/2009. P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED, 15/3/2010 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED, 10/6/2011 AS NO.B- 2165/2010/K.DIS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 20703 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's building has been assessed to building tax. Assessment order was passed on 17.8.2009. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is the appellate authority, on 15.3.2010. The petitioner received the copy of the assessment order on 28.8.2009 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, by Ext.P4 order, rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed in Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. That is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner's contention is that along with the appeal the petitioner had filed a petition to condone delay giving reasons as to why the petitioner could not file the appeal in time. Therefore, without passing an order on the application to condone delay, the appellate authority could not have rejected the appeal as time barred, is his contention. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Section 11(3) of the Act reads thus: “11. Appeals.- (1).... xxx xxxx xxxx (3) The appeal shall be presented within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or the date of service of the order, as the case may be, but w.p.c.20703/11 2 the appellate authority may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the said period if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period, provided however that no such appeal shall be admitted after a period of six months from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or the date of service of the order, as the case may be.” (underlining supplied) From the same, it is clear that the appeal has to be filed within 30 days and the appellate authority can condone delay in filing the same up to 6 months. Admittedly, the appeal has been filed beyond six months. As such, the appellate authority could not have condoned delay also. A Division Bench of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval [2005 (4) KLT 947] held that once the appeal is time barred, the party cannot challenge the original order by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to resurrect the original cause of action. In the above circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner comes to an end as in the case of a time barred suit. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge