IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23567 of 2010() ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR.RAPHAEL T PAUL, S/O.PAUL T RAPHAEL, AGED 70, PROPRIETOR, `AROGYALAYAM HOSPITAL' ALUVA, RESIDING AT THEKKANATH PANDARAVALAPPIL HOUSE, THYNOTHIL ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSESSING ASUTHORITY UNDER THE BUILDING TAX ACT, TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJU CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23567 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order by the first respondent under the Kerala Building Tax Act in respect of the 'third floor' of the building belonging to the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal, the same did not turn to be fruitful, as evident from Ext.P6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction of the building was made prior to the 'appointed date' under the Act, i.e., 10.2.1992 and this being the position, the assessment ought to have been made under Section 5(3), instead of Section 5(4), which aspect has not been considered by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P6 order and hence under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Taking note of the factual circumstances revealed from the records, it is seen that the matter has not been properly considered by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P6 order ; WPC No.23567/2010 2 more so since the legal position is settled by the authoritative pronouncement of law made by this Court in Abdul Rasheed v. Tahsildar (2005 (2) KLT 819). In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the second respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration. Ext.P2 appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be reconsidered by the second respondent and appropriate orders shall be passed with reference to all the specific grounds raised therein, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that till such fresh orders are passed on Ext.P2 appeal, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) vps WPC No.23567/2010 3 WPC No.23567/2010 4