IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31211 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.V.MATHEW, VARAMBINAKATHU HOUSE, PLOT NO.60, KUMARANASAN NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM 682020. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, FORT KOCHI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31211 OF 2008 N ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P5(a), P8 and P9. Exts.P7 and P7(a) are the assessment orders under the Kerala Building Tax Act. But, by a mistake, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged Exts.P5 and P5(a) instead of Exts.P7 and P7(a). Ext.P8 is the order of the Tahsildar imposing luxury tax. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has right of revision under section 13 of the Building Tax Act. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the view taken by the RDO cannot be countenanced in law. He points out that the RDO has taken the view that law does not treat the husband and wife as different persons. I am sure that if he files a revision, he can take a contention against this finding before the revisional authority and the revisional authority will apply its mind to the contention. In the face of the availability of an alternate WPC.31211/08 : 2 : remedy which cannot be, by no stretch of imagination, considered as inadequate, I decline jurisdiction. Writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy available under section 13 of the Act. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE