IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33200 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PODIKUNJU MUSALIYAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHANDANATHOPU, KOLLAM, REP.BY CHAIRMAN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER (GENERAL) COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, (ASSESSMENT OFFICER) ENGINEER, COLLECTOTRATE, KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33200 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 series and Ext.P7 series of orders passed in the matter of cess assessment under the Building and other Construction Workers Cess Act. Earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.18232/2010. The same was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment directing the 3rd respondent therein to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner as evident from Ext.P6 series therein in accordance with law. This writ petition has been filed raising grievances against the orders passed in purported compliance with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment. The grievance of the petitioner is that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the consideration of Ext.P6 series of representations referred to in Ext.P4 judgment. That apart, Ext.P5 series and Ext.P7 series of orders reflect non-application of mind. It is not discernible as to how the cost of construction was assessed for passing orders, as per Ext.P5 series and Ext.P7 series. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that in case, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of being heard it WPC.No.33200/2010 : 2 : would have enabled the 3rd respondent to consider the issue in an appropriate and effective manner. This writ petition has been filed with the above averments. 2. Having perused Ext.P5 series and Ext.P7 series of orders, I am of the view that the said orders are passed without taking into account the spirit of the judgment and in fact how the actual cost of construction was assessed while passing orders as per Ext.P5 and P7 series is also not discernible from that orders. That apart, it is evident from Ext.P7 series that objections filed were also not properly considered. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. In order to enable the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P6 series afresh, Ext.P5 series and Ext.P7 series are quashed. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P6 series with notice to the petitioners and also with an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge