IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2515 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOOLEPARAMBIL HASSANAR S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, NANNAMMUKKU SOUTH P.O., PONNANI. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.S.KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHASILDAR, PONNANI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. NANNAMUKKU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,NANNAMMUKKU SOUTH P.O. PONNANI. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 2515 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The assessment order passed by the concerned assessing authority/1st respondent with respect to the liability of the petitioner for payment of tax under Section 4 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was subjected to challenge by filing appropriate proceedings before the District Collector; pursuant to which the same was set aside and the assessing authority was directed to recompute the liability. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered by the 1st respondent and Ext.P8 order was passed; aggrieved of which, Ext.P9 appeal was filed before the appellate authority, i.e., the 5th respondent. After considering the said appeal, the appellate authority passed Ext.P10 order declining interference stating that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the order passed by the 2nd respondent/District Collector and this being the position, no interference was possible; which forms the subject matter in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who sought to assert the merits involved, with reference to the statement filed. Contents of said statement are obviously with regard to the facts of the WP(C) No.2515/2010 2 case and not with regard to the legal issue/ sustainability of Ext.P10 order passed by the 5th respondent. As mentioned hereinbefore, the appellate authority/5th respondent has declined interference, refusing to exercise the specific statutory duty cast upon the said appellate authority, simply for the reason that the order has been passed by the assessing authority pursuant to the direction given by the 2nd respondent, to have it reconsidered; which is per se wrong, unsustainable and without proper application of mind. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no reason to sustain Ext.P10. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the 5th respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P9 appeal, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc