IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32864 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FR.MARIADAS AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH PLO BHAVAN, PUTHOOR VAYAL, THRIKKALPETTA VILLAGE VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KALPETTA WAYANAD. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, WAYANAD, MANANTHAVADY. 4. THAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKALPETTA, WAYANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.32864 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 order issued by the revisional authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, wherein Ext.P10 petition submitted seeking restoration of the revision petition is rejected. Against the assessment of Building Tax, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and during pendency of that appeal, the petitioner had remitted 25% of the tax assessed. Ext.P8 is the receipt evidencing such payment. The revision petition against the order in appeal was filed during October 2008. According to the petitioner he had remitted another 25% of the amount on 7.11.2008 as evidenced by Ext.P7 receipt. But the revisional authority without noticing such remittance had rejected the revision petition as evidenced by Ext.P9 dt. 6.3.2009. Therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 interim application seeking restoration of the appeal pointing out that 50% of the tax amount assessed, which is pre-requisite for considering the revision, has already been paid. But through Ext.P11 that petition was dismissed holding that the revision petition once dismissed could W.P.(C).32864/09-C 2 not be considered again and further alleging that there is delay in filing Ext.P10. 2. It is evident from the facts stated above that Ext.P9 order rejecting the revision petition was happened to be issued only because the remittance made through Ext.P7 was not noticed. Therefore it is evident that there was proper compliance of the pre-requisite condition of deposit of tax, for entertaining the revision petition. 3. Under the above circumstances Ext.P9 and P11 orders are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent revisional authority is directed to take back Ext.P6 revision petition and to consider and dispose of the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb