IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16327 of 2005(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.SREEKUMAR, AGED 48, SW/O.P.K.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT SREEPADAM, ERUMELI, ERMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, KANGIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CESS ASSESSING OFFICER. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, COLLECTORATE KOTTAYAM. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATED 25.4.2005 EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.1.2005 EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE SHOWING EXTENSION UPTO 13.6.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 16327 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT WPC was filed challenging the demand of construction workers welfare cess for the residential building constructed by the petitioner. In the WPC petitioner denied having constructed any building attracting liability. Therefore an interim order was passed on 27.11.2007 directing the Tahsildar to verify whether petitioner has constructed by building and submit his report in court. This Court passed the interim order stating that if the claim is found to be wrong, then court will order heavy costs. Inspite of the same, petitioner persuaded this Court to pass interim order to verify whether petitioner has constructed any building. However, the Tahsildar filed a report after conducting inspection on 11.8.2009 wherein he has confirmed that petitioner has constructed a residential building with 356.05 sq. metres with marble flooring. Petitioner's contention is that construction was prior to coming into force of Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996. I do not find any bona 2 fide in the contention of the petitioner because petitioner has completed construction of the building in 1997 and the same is evident from the fact that building tax was paid on 15.3.1997 itself. In the circumstances, W.P.C. is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3