IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18246 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------------------- KUNJUMOHAMMED SADIQ, S/O.KUNJUMOHAMMED, PALLIMITTATHU HOUSE KURUVILLASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR. SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.18246 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased a building with the premises in the year 2003. Subsequently, in the same courtyard, the petitioner constructed a commercial building having 281 sq.ms, with tin roof without side walls. But the 3rd respondent assessed the old along with the new building together as a leaning to a 'single unit', fixing total tax liability under Section 5 of Kerala Building Tax Act and demanding a total sum of Rs.82,800/-. This was challenged by filing statutory appeal before 2nd respondent after remitting ¼ of the amount due as prescribed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was working abroad and could not attend the hearing scheduled by 2nd respondent and accordingly the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for default as per Ext.P4 order dated 12.3.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could come back to India only on W.P.(C). NO.18246 OF 2010 2 3.5.2010 as revealed from the entries in the Passport. Immediately the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and filed Ext.P7 application for restoration of the appeal on 20.5.2010, but the second respondent rejected the same, which is under challenge. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by Ext.P4, it is not revealed as to how and when the notice of hearing was sent to the petitioner/appellant. In any view of the matter, there is a specific case for the petitioner that petitioner was working abroad and could come back only on 3.5.2010. Since Ext.P4 order was passed on 12.3.2010 and since the petitioner could return to India only by 3.5.10 and further since the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 restoration application on 20.5.2010, it is very much clear that the petitioner was earnestly prosecuting the matter. This Court finds no reason to deny an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits. 5. In the above circumstances, the Ext.P4 is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to re-consider appeal W.P.(C). NO.18246 OF 2010 3 dated 24.2.2009 referred to in Ext.P4 on merits, after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner shall co-operate with the proceedings and the matter shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before second respondent for taking further steps. The Writ petition is allowed. No costs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mns