IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2131 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MARIAMMA JOSE, W/O.JOSE C.PETER, ARACKAL HOUSE, OLAMATTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER, BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.2131 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance projected in this writ petition with regard to the liability to pay building tax is pending consideration before the very same assessing authority, i.e. the first respondent, by way of Ext.P6 rectification application. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down by this Court in the decision reported in Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala (2009(1) KLT 295) stating that the assessment made by the first respondent fixing the tax liability upon the petitioner is not correct or proper. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances and also taking note of the fact that Ext.P6 rectification petition has been filed well within the time as contemplated by the statute, i.e. W.P.(C) No.2131 of 2010 - 2 - under Section 15 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 in accordance with law and also in the light of the decision cited supra. Final orders as above shall be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and if necessary conducting a spot inspection as well with prior notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that all recovery proceedings now being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance and the same will be subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the first respondent. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns