IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1935 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.THIRUVENKITOM, SEEMATI, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.BEENA, SEEMATI, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682011. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682011. 3. THE REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682011. MR.S.RAMESH BABU, SC FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1935of 2010 (N) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is against Ext.P7. 3. The petitioners state that in respect of the 4 th floor of a building owned by them, they made Ext.P1 application claiming that from 01/04/2008 they propose to use the area and requesting that the area may be assessed for building tax. According to them, the Revenue Officer of the Corporation inspected the premises and informed that the building was already numbered during the year 1997-98 and that the tax is due from that date. They were also issued Exts.P2 & P3, and on its receipt, disputing the demand they filed Exts.P4 & P5 and approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.27266/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment dated 05/09/2008 directing that the matter shall be considered with notice to the petitioners. They were accordingly heard on 24/10/2008, and Ext.P7 order has been issued on WP(C) No.1935/2010 -2- 31/12/2009 reiterating the demand. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. A perusal of Ext.P7 shows that apart from adding certain figures on a printed format, the Corporation has not adverted to any of the contentions raised by the petitioners in Exts.P4 & P5 objections. Ext.P7 therefore reflects total abdication of quasi judicial power and non-application of mind and therefore Ext.P7 deserves to be set aside. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P7, and the 2nd respondent is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners duly adverting to the contentions and pass a reasoned order in the matter. Before orders are passed, the petitioners shall also be given an opportunity of hearing. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg