IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 410 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.28652/2002 Dated 08/02/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1. FRANCIS KURIAN, KUZHIAMPARAMBIL, THELLAKAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. LUCY FRANCIS, FRANCIS KURIAN KUZHIAMPARAMBIL, THELLAKAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS SMT.RUBY K.JOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY,KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R2 & 3 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 410 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The matter relates to property tax by the Municipality. Against Ext.P5 order of assessment petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal to the Chairman. Admittedly, it is the Standing Committee which is the appellate authority. However, the Chairman has disposed of the matter on merits. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the Chairman is without hearing him and therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice. Raising such complaint, he has preferred the writ petition. 2. The learned Single Judge found that the assessment in respect of two buildings is based on the rental value of the building. As such no interference is called for even on merits. In respect of the other buildings it has been found that tax assessed ranges from Rs. 672/- to Rs. 1440/-. The learned Single Judge found no ground to interfere with Ext.P5. But whether the assessment of those buildings is also based on rental value or not and whether the increase made is exorbitant, has not been considered. W.A. 410/2009 :2: Nor the Chairman has considered this aspect. 3. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality that though the appeal was preferred to the Chairman, it was entertained as an appeal to the Standing Committee and the Standing Committee has heard the matter. Ext.P6 is a non speaking order. It merely informs the appellant that his appeal has been dismissed. This is far from satisfactory. 4. In the circumstances, the Standing Committee may hear the petitioner and pass orders in respect of the two buildings, namely, 1477 A1 and 1477 A2 since except for these two buildings, the assessment in respect of the other buildings are found to be factually not liable to be interfered with. Whatever amount paid by the petitioner will be adjusted and relief will be moulded accordingly while passing final orders in the appeal. The appeal is partly allowed as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. KNC/-