IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20001 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.C.VARGHESE, CHIRAKARAYIL, KADAMATTOM P.O., AIKKARANAD SOUTH, KOLENCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 3. THASILDAR KUNNATHUNADU KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 20001 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th July , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the third respondent under the Kerala Building Tax Act, imposing a total liability of Rs.75600/-. After giving credit to the amount already deposited by the petitioner, the balance sum of Rs,.60,000/- was demanded to be paid by way of four equal monthly installments. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 representation along with Ext.P4 petition for stay before the second respondent after satisfying 50% of the liability vide Ext.P3 receipt, inspite of which, the proceedings were not even accepted by the Revisional authority stating that unless and until the petitioner availed the appellate remedy, the scope of Revision under Section 13 of the Act was not liable to be entertained. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P.(C) No. 20001 OF 2010 2 it is for the party to opt the remedy either by way of appeal or Revision. It is also pointed out that the first quarterly installment was paid as per receipt dated 17.12.2009 whereas the second installment was paid on 24.03.2010, thus satisfying the total liability of 50% of the disputed amount. The only requirement to be satisfied to sustain the Revision Petition is to have deposited 50% of the disputed liability, whereas the party concerned is supposed to deposit only the first quarterly installment, ie. 25% of the the due amount for availing the remedy by way of appeal. Having satisfied 50%, the second respondent ought to have considered Ext.P2 and P4 (Revision Petition and I.A. for stay) and ought to have passed orders in accordance with law. Inaction in this regard is stated as an instance of refusal to exercise the statutory duty vested upon the second respondent , which hence is sought to be intercepted . 3. Heard the learned Government pleader as well, who submits on instruction that Ext.P2 Revision petition as well as Ext. P4 I.A for stay stated as preferred by the petitioner have not been actually filed and do not form part of the records W.P.(C) No. 20001 OF 2010 3 before the second respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the above proceedings were refused to be accepted in the office of the second respondent, stating that a Revision could be filed only against the appellate order, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 4. Taking note of the rival submissions and also in view of the fact that the statute does not prescribe any bar to file Revision Petition (without filing any appeal), this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the second respondent to consider the Revision Petition, if the statutory requirement has already been complied with. 5. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is permitted to file proper Revision Petition along with I.A. for stay,( copy of which has already been produced as Ext.P4 before the second respondent), paying the requisite fee and also satisfying the proof of deposit of 50% (original of Ext. P3 receipt ) within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On preferring the Revision Petition as well as I.A. fo stay as above, W.P.(C) No. 20001 OF 2010 4 the Revision Petition shall be considered by the second respondent and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 6 weeks thereafter. The recovery proceedings in respect of the balance amount shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk