IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8892 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.D.JOSEPH, S/O.DANIEL, NELLIMATTATHIL HOUSE, NEAR AYURVEDA JUNCTION, THIRUVAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN SRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN SMT.P.SUMITHRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI-682 001. 3. TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANKULAM.P.O.-682 305, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8892 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.12.8.2010 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DTD.20.8.2009 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.4.2010 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF THE 1ST INSTALMENT OF TAX DTD.15.9.2009 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF THE 2ND INSTALMENT OF TAX DTD.14.7.2010 EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD.16.7.2010 EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.25.1.2011 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 21.2.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8892 of 2011-J ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The assessment of building tax completed against the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P2 order, is the subject matter of challenge. The building in question, which contains residential and non residential areas were assessed under different tarrifs by virtue of Ext.P2, reckoning the total plinth area as 1146.24 Sq.M. Ext.P2 order of assessment was the subject matter of challenge in appeal, and in Ext.P4 order the appellate authority had confirmed the assessment. The appellate authority rejected the appeal holding that there is no error in the calculation of plinth area, as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision petition before the 1st respondent as provided under Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975. Ext.P8 revision petition was rejected by the 1st respondent through Ext.P9 order on the ground that there was failure in appearing before the revisional authority when the matter was posted W.P(C) No.8892 of 2011-J 2 for hearing. On a perusal of Ext.P9 it is evident that initially the hearing was posted on 1.12.2010, on which date the petitioner sought an adjournment. On the further posting date, on 19.1.2011, also an adjournment was sought for on the very same reason of inconvenience of the counsel. But the revisional authority had rejected the request and consequently decided the the revision as ex-parte. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the rejection of the revision petition without considering its merits is highly illegal. It is further contended that the request for adjournment is made only due to genuine reasons and the denial of opportunity was highly unreasonable and arbitrary. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had already remitted 50% of the tax amount assessed. It is further evident that the revisional authority had rejected the matter on an ex-parte basis without going into the merits of the contentions raised. Being a statutory revision petition, it is only just and proper in the interest of justice to have a disposal of the matter on merits by the statutory authority. Eventhough, I am not proposing to arrive at any finding W.P(C) No.8892 of 2011-J 3 regarding justifiability of the denial of adjournment, I am of the opinion that the matter can be settled if a direction is issued to the revisional authority to restore the revision petition and to dispose of the same on merits. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P9 order. The 1st respondent is directed to restore the revision petition on his files and to dispose of the same on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. The petitioner shall co-operate with the revisional authority for an early disposal of the matter. Since it is evident that the petitioner had already deposited 50% of the amount, which is equivalent to two instalments mentioned in Ext.P2, recovery of balance amount shall be kept in abeyance, subject to disposal of the revision petition. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab