IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31945 of 2004(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.C. KORAH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, M.J. WELCOME, HEBRON BUNGALOW, MAKKAPUZHA P.O., RANNY. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY, SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. RANNY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RANNY P.O.-689 672, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE, RANNY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RANNY P.O. 689 672, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C) NO. 31945/2004-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/03/1997 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RR DEMAND NOTICE NO.A6-10/03 (II/61) DATED 10/12/2003 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/12/2003 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 02/01/2004 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A6-1/04 DATED 03/09/2004 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.31945 of 2004 ---------------------------- Dated 14th January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a charitable society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. According to the petitioner, they had been running a lodge by name Mundukottakkal Lodge at Perumpuzha, Ranny with door Nos.II/90 to 205. The said lodge was closed on 26.3.1997 and thereafter in April, 1997 they have demolished the same and intimated that fact to the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayat. Long later, on 10.12.2003, Ext.P2 demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act demanding the sum of Rs.21,646.20 under various heads has been served on the petitioner. The tax arrears and cess amount with interest demanded as per Ext.P2 pertain to the period from 1997-1998 to 2003-2004. Evidently, Ext.P2 notice had been issued under Rule 18(2)(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 1996 (for short `the Rules'). According to the petitioner, against Ext.P2 demand notice Ext.P4 appeal has been preferred. But, without considering the said appeal the first respondent finalised the proceedings under Rule 18 of the Rules and passed Ext.P5 order virtually confirming the decision in Ext.P2. It is challenging Exts.P2 and P5 that this writ petition has been WP(C).No.31945/2004 2 filed. No counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. Essentially, the contention is that despite filing Ext.P4 appeal against Ext.P2 demand notice the Secretary of the first respondent finalised the demand made as per Ext.P2 in and vide Ext.P5. Ext.P4 is the appeal said to have been filed before the second respondent. As noticed earlier, no counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition refuting the contentions raised by the petitioner including the above contention. Therefore, there is nothing on record which would suggest the contention raised by the petitioner that he has appealed against Ext.P2 as incorrect. In view of the fact that Ext.P2 is an appealable order and that Ext.P4 appeal has been preferred against Ext.P2, the second respondent, the appellate authority, should have considered the grievances raised by the petitioner in the appeal and during the pendency of Ext.P4 appeal the Secretary of the first respondent should not have passed Ext.P5. In short, the issue requires a reconsideration in the aforesaid circumstances. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P2. The petitioner shall produce a copy of Ext.P4 WP(C).No.31945/2004 3 appeal before the second respondent to enable him to comply with the direction along with a copy of this judgment. On production of copy of Ext.P4 appeal within a period of three weeks from today, the second respondent shall consider the same on merits untrammelled by the decision in Ext.P5. Such consideration shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of Ext.P4 appeal from the petitioner. The liability of the petitioner to pay the amount towards the demand made as per Ext.P2 would be subject to the decision in the appeal. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge