IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7773 of 2007(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THADATHIL SULAIMAN HAJI, S/O T.MOHAMMED SAHIB, MELMURI DESOM, MUTHUR AMSOM, PONANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI C.M. MOHAMMED IQUABAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PONANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SPECIAL CELL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7773/2007-A: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE WAKF DEED-BEARING DOCUMENT NO. 3618/91 DTD. 21/12/1991. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE PONANI TAHSILDAR DTD. 13/10/03. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PONANI TAHSILDAR. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.3. DTD. 18/07/2006. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 06/02/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7773 OF 2007 A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the challenge is against Exts. P2, P3 and P5. The petitioner is a Muthavalli of a Wakf of which the Wakf Deed is Ext.P1. In respect of certain properties covered by Ext. P1 building tax was assessed. When the petitioner raised a contention of its entitlement for exemption as provided under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, the matter was finally referred to the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submits that he gave Ext. P4 request to the 3rd respondent requesting that notice of hearing may be sent to his counsel, and that when Ext. P4 was made, reply came by Ext. P5 informing that the government by order dated 20.12.2006 had already rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption of tax. On this basis, by Ext. P5, petitioner was called upon to remit the tax and it is in this background the writ petition has been filed. 2. The only contention that is raised before me is that before rejecting the petitioner's application for exemption, the 3rd W.P.(C) No. 7773 OF 2007 - 2 - respondent did not issue a notice of hearing to the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner seems to be correct and even in Ext. P5, there is no mention that the petitioner was heard. It is also the petitioner's specific contention that the order dated 20.12.2006 was not communicated to him. 3. In these circumstances, I am inclined to quash the order dated 20.12.2006 and Ext. P5. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for exemption from building tax with notice to the petitioner and take a fresh decision in the matter. This shall be done by the 3rd respondent with notice as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-