IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14791 of 2008(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- AYSHA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. (LATE) C.H.MOIDU, CHENOTH HOUSE, KAMBLAKKAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAFEEKH KOTTAKKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, VYTHITI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, MUTTIL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.M.A.ASIF, GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14791/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DETAILED ABSTRACT ESTIMATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KAMBALAKKAD PANCHAYAT. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF BUILDING TAX PAID BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE SAID BUILDING. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED JUNE, 2005 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 17.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE an. V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).14791/2008 ....................... Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner proceeded to construct two shop rooms in her residential property, though originally there was a proposal to construct seven shop rooms. 3rd respondent, the assessing authority under the Kerala Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996, issued a pre-assessment notice to the petitioner under the said Act. Petitioner did not respond to the same nor did she file any objections. The assessment was therefore, completed. Matter was referred for revenue recovery. It is at that point of time, petitioner approached this Court. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated that registered notices were sent to the petitioner. She did not turn up to remit the assessed cess amount. Therefore assessment was finalized. Petitioner W.P.(C). 2 could have availed an appellate remedy which was also not done. 3. I heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned Government Pleader is right in pointing out that the petitioner has not made out any grounds for interference. But I take note of the fact that the petitioner is a widow living alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that she is illiterate. In the circumstances, a fresh opportunity may be given to the petitioner. It is contended that pursuant to the orders of this Court, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid towards the disputed demand. 4. Accordingly, petitioner shall be granted one opportunity to file objections to Ext.P3. She shall be given a hearing through an authorized representative and final orders shall be passed afresh by the 3rd respondent. The whole process shall be completed within three months from the W.P.(C). 3 date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Further enforcement of the revenue recovery notice shall be kept in abeyance till a fresh order is passed as aforementioned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs