IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21635 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- REJI THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.K.M.THOMAS, KADOOR HOUSE, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 583. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE, SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 585. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLOOPARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 583. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21635/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL DTD 29/01/2011 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REGVISION DTD. 17/05/2011 BEFORE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 28/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 02/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.1. ON EXT.P.2. STATUTORY REVISION. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21635 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has been assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was dismissed by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 revision before the 1st respondent District Collector. According to the petitioner, as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner had paid the entire building tax demanded and thereafter only the petitioner filed the revision. But, by Ext.P5 order, the District Collector dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the petitioner did not pay the 50% of the tax demanded, which is a statutory condition precedent for entertaining a revision petition under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner submits that since the petitioner had already paid the entire tax demanded, this was a mistake and therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 application for rectification of the mistake committed in dismissing the revision petition. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(C)No.21635/11 2 i) declare that Exhibit P5 order issued by the 1st respondent is illegal and unsustainable in law; ii) call for the records leading to Exhibit-P5 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P2 and P6 on merits”. 2. The learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner did not produce the receipts evidencing payment and that is why Ext.P5 order happened to be passed. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall produce the original of Exts.P3 and P4 before the District Collector within two weeks. On production of the same, the District Collector shall consider Ext.P6 application and if the District Collector is satisfied that the petitioner had already paid the tax before filing the revision petition, the District Collector shall restore the revision petition to file and dispose of the same on merits. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.21635/11 3 W.P.(C)No.21635/11 4