IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 81 of 2010(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.CHELLAPPAN NADAR, RESIDING AT TC 11/1863,MULLASSERI LANE, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REVENUE OFFICER, CITY CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 81 OF 2010 (I) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Non acceptance of building tax in respect of a building constructed by the petitioner is what is complained of in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner submits that on the strength of Ext.P2 building permit and Ext.P3 approved plan, petitioner constructed a three storied building in his property in Sy.No.3003/B2-1 of Vanchiyoor Village. According to the petitioner, after the completion of the construction, Ext.P6 occupancy certificate was issued, building was numbered and tax was also paid. 3. However, acting upon Ext.P8 complaint made by one of the neighbours of the petitioner, Ext.P9 notice under Section 408 (1) of the Kerala Municipality Act was issued by the Corporation, to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 explanation. It is stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, by Ext.P11, the building number assigned to the petitioner was cancelled by the Corporation. Ext.P11 was challenged before this Court in WP(C) NO. 10096/07 and that writ petition was disposed WPC 81/10 :2 : of by Ext.P12 judgment quashing Ext.P11 and directing Corporation to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 4. It is stated that accordingly on two occasions, orders were passed, which were both called in question before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Petitioner submits that both the orders were set aside by the Tribunal, and that as at present, no further proceedings are pending. It is also his case that in the meanwhile, the neighbour who made Ext.P8 complaint, withdrew his complaint by Ext.P13 representation submitted to the Corporation. It is his case that despite all the above, building tax in respect of the building is not accepted for the period subsequent to 2007-08. 5. Thus the grievance of the petitioner is that while there is no proceedings pending against the building constructed by him, the Corporation is unreasonably refusing to accept tax due from him. 6. The Corporation on the other hand submits that there are complaints against the building in question and that they are entitled to take action against the building and therefore, the WPC 81/10 :3 : petitioner cannot insist that the Corporation should accept tax. 7. If as contended by the Corporation, any irregularity has been committed by the petitioner in the construction of the building, it is open to the Corporation to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. However, as at present, there is no proceedings pending against the petitioner, and if that be so, he is entitled to make payment of the building tax that is due. This is all the more so in view of the provisions contained in Section 242 of the Municipalities Act. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Corporation to accept tax in respect of the building constructed by the petitioner for the period subsequent to 2007-08. However, this judgment shall not be to the prejudice of the Corporation in initiating action which they deem appropriate against the petitioner, if there are any circumstances justifying the same. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp