IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21410 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MOIDUPPA HAJI, S/O.MAMMU KUTTY HAJI, AGED 56 YEARS, VETTIKALLADI, PULLISSERY P.O., KARAKURUSSI VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN 687801. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 687801. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT), MANNARKKAD, PIN 687803. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 687805. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 21410 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 9th July , 2010 J U D G M E N T. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P4 order rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent, challenging Ext. P1 assessment order passed by the third respondent under the Kerala Building Tax Act . 2. Earlier, when the statutory appeal was rejected, the matter was taken up before the first respondent /District Collector by filing a Revision Petition, which led to Ext. P2 order, whereby the order passed by the appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remanded to the second respondent permitting the petitioner to cure the defects and to have the appeal heard on merits. Inspite of the remand order, the petitioner could not cure the defects on time and in the said circumstances, the second respondent has issued Ext. P4 order, whereby the appeal was rejected again, stating that the defect still subsists. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lapses on the part of the petitioner are never wilful but because W.P.(C) No. 21410 OF 2010 2 of some unforeseen circumstances. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire defects will be cured within three days and that one more opportunity might be given to the petitioner to have the appeal considered on merits. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well 4. Taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to have the appeal considered and decided on merits. Accordingly, Ext.P4 passed by the second respondent is set aside and the petitioner is directed to cure all the defects noted by the second respondent within one week, on which event, the appeal shall be considered and final orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk