IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35026 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.E.MEERAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.LATE MR.M.M.EBRAHIM, MANAGING TRUSTEE, M.M.EBRAHIM MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, MACHIPILAVU-P.O., ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN SMT.JISHAMOL CLEETUS SMT.P.SHYNI MR.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED MR.N.NIRUP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA BUILDING & OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, KERALA BUILDING & OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, WELFARE CESS ACT, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER, BUILDING & OTHER (CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS ACT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 35026 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 assessment order assessing Cess under the Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996. The petitioner challenges the same on the ground that although after the receipt of Ext.P2 assessment notice, the petitioner was entitled to 15 days time under law to file objections, the 4th respondent has, without waiting for the 15 days, passed Ext.P3 orders on 29.10.2009. He submits that although the petitioner has filed Exts.P4 and P5, no reply has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that since Ext.P3 assessment order has been passed in violation of the procedural formalities prescribed under the Act, Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned Government Pleader opposes the same. According to him, after having chosen to file Exts.P4 and P5, that too, before the wrong authority, the petitioner cannot now contend that the assessing officer should reconsider the matter. W.P(C) No. 35026 of 2009 -2- The petitioner's remedy, according to the Government Pleader, is to challenge the assessment order in appeal. The Government Pleader also points out that for maintaining an appeal before the appellate authority, under the Act, the petitioner is bound to deposit the entire amount demanded. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Ext.P2 assessment notice is dated 15.10.2009. It is not disputed before me that on receipt of Ext.P2 notice the petitioner is entitled to 15 days time to file objections. Ext.P3 assessment order is dated 29.10.2009, before the expiry of the 15 days, time permitted by law to the petitioner. For that reason alone, Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed. The denial of opportunity to file objections amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. That being so, I am inclined to entertain this writ petition notwithstanding the availability of the alternate remedy by way of appeal. Accordingly Ext.P3 is quashed. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner shall file his objections within two weeks along with a certified copy of the judgment. Thereupon the 4th respondent shall issue a notice of W.P(C) No. 35026 of 2009 -3- hearing to the petitioner and hear the petitioner before passing fresh orders. The opportunity of hearing would include opportunity to adduce evidence also. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge