IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15491 of 2010(J) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SOMINI,W/O.P.K.RAGHAVAN,SOMINI MANDIRAM, PANDINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY MR.B.MOHANLAL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,KOTTARKKARA KOLLAM. 2. THE KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR)TALUK OFFICE, KOTARAKKARA,KOLLAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM. BY MR.C.J.JOY, SC, KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR R1& R2. MS.K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 & R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15491 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner's grievance is with respect to the denial of the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme by the Panchayath in respect of the payment of building tax. The Panchayath assessed the building tax in respect of the two buildings of the petitioner bearing Nos.KP-XIII/184, 185 for the period 2004-2005 onwards and KP-XIV/259, and by Exhibit P1, a notice was issued demanding Rs.19,556/- each as tax for the above two buildings. 2. It appears that there was a dispute regarding the rate of tax, which was ultimately allowed in her favour in an appeal filed by her before the Panchayath Committee. Exhibit P3 is the minutes of the Panchayath Committee whereby the building tax has been reduced to Rs.4,860/-. The dispute herein is only with respect to building No.KL-XIV/259. W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 2 3. The petitioner, on receipt of Exhibit P1, raised an objection as per Exhibit P4 with regard to the calculation of the total amount. Subsequently, there were various proceedings including the proceedings for prosecution against the petitioner and other recovery proceedings. S.T.No.1496/2004 was dismissed by the trial court. 4. In the revenue recovery proceedings, an amount of Rs.63,899/- was demanded as per Exhibit P6. In the meanwhile, after the introduction of the One Time Settlement Scheme, the petitioner filed an application to recalculate the amount at the rate of Rs.4860/-. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7017/2010 wherein this Court, by judgment dated 09.03.2010, directed the Panchayath to take a decision on the request of the petitioner. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that she was prepared to remit the entire amount before 31.03.2010 but the Panchayath was demanding more amount namely, Rs.76,312/- other than the amount covered by Exhibit P6. The communication issued by W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 3 the Panchayath has been produced as Exhibit P9. Finally, the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.63,899/- along with collection charges at Rs.3,195/- as well as Rs.110/- towards other miscellaneous expenses. 6. The petitioner has got a further grievance that the licence in respect of her hotel building which expired in 1998- 1999 has not been considered for renewal even though the petitioner is prepared to pay the arrears towards various items including the licence fee. 7. The Panchayath has filed a detailed statement as well as a counter affidavit. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demand towards penal interest cannot be justified and actually the petitioner is entitled for waiver of the component towards penal interest in the light of the Government Order granting the facility for One Time Settlement. Herein, the contention of the Panchayath is that the said order is dated 13.01.2010 produced as Exhibit R2(c) in the counter affidavit and obviously, the same can apply only to the W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 4 year 2009-2010 and therefore, with regard to the penal interest payable for the years 2000-2001 onwards, the petitioner cannot be absolved of the liability. 8. Exhibit R2(c) order shows that the Government allowed the facility for One Time Settlement if the arrears are paid prior to 31.03.2010. The facility also allows waiver of penal interest. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Panchayath that the waiver of penal interest can apply only to one year obviously cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that no such restriction is made in Exhibit R2(c). Apart from that, as far as the One Time Settlement Schemes are concerned, normally if the parties have paid the arrears within the stipulated time, the entire portion of penal interest would be waived. Herein also, the same method has been ordered by the Government in Exhibit R2(c). Therefore, the petitioner will be entitled for the waiver of penal interest for the entire defaulted periods. 9. On a comparison of the Tables A and B contained in the counter affidavit, it can be seen that if the component towards W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 5 penal interest is excluded, the liability will be an amount of Rs.56,331/- whereas the petitioner has already remitted Rs.63,899/-. Therefore, there is an excess payment of Rs.7,568/-. 10. Learned counsel for the Panchayath submitted that if this Court finds that the penal interest portion has to be waived, then the excess amount will be adjusted by the Panchayath against the tax payable in 2010-2011. The said plea is accepted. The excess amount of Rs.7,568/- would be adjusted towards payment for the coming year. 11. What remains is renewal of the licence of the hotel building. The petitioner will have to make proper applications before the Panchayath for renewal along with required amounts including arrears and other charges. If a proper application is filed as above, the same will be considered by the Panchayath in accordance with the Rules and proper communication will be issued to the petitioner, expeditiously. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 6 even though the petitioner has remitted various amounts towards building tax for the subsequent periods, the same is yet to be adjusted by the Panchayath. The same will also be considered by the Panchayath and if the remittance have been actually made by the petitioner, the same will be adjusted and receipts showing the amount will be issued to the petitioner, if not already issued. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp