IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37061 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THOMAS MATHEW, AGED 49, S/O. LATE OOMMEN THOMAS, NALUVELIL COTTAGE, KUTTAPPUSHA VILLAGE, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, THIRUVALLA-1. 2. SHERLY MATHEW, W/O.THOMAS MATHEW, NALUVELIL COTTAGE, KUTTAPPUSHA VILLAGE, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, THIRUVALLA-1. BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS, SMT.SIKKY RAVISHANKAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA – 695 649. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA – 695 649. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 37061 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 order issued by the appellate authority, the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975. Considering the fact that, the statute provides an effective alternative remedy by way of revision against Ext.P5, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the merits of the contentions. 2. However, it is stated that the petitioners were not issued with a certified copy of Ext.P5 and only a photocopy was made available from the office of the Tahsildar. It is the case of the petitioners that unless they get an authenticated copy from the 1st respondent, they could not invoke the statutory remedy of revision before the District Collector. It is mentioned that Ext.P6 request was submitted before the 1st respondent for issuing certified copy of the order in question. But an authenticated copy was not issued so far. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners can be relegated to invoke statutory remedy of revision before the District Collector. The 1st WP(C).No.37061/2010 2 respondent is directed to issue an authenticated copy of Ext.P5 order on the basis of Ext.P6 request, in order to facilitate the petitioners to approach the revisional authority. The 1st respondent shall issue the copy as requested, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. If the petitioners file any revision petition before the District Collector within two weeks from the date of receipt of the authenticated copy of Ext.P5 proceedings, the same shall be entertained by the District Collector as a statutory revision filed within the time stipulated under the Act. The District Collector concerned shall consider and dispose of such revision petition on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Needless to say that the petitioners shall be provided with liberty to produce documents in support of their contention. It is made clear that the revision petition if any filed need be entertained only if the petitioners satisfy the pre- conditions stipulated under the statute. 5. In order to facilitate the petitioners to approach the revisional authority as directed above, coercive steps of recovery of the balance amount of tax shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. It is left open to seek appropriate WP(C).No.37061/2010 3 interim relief from the revisional authority. pmn/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE