IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30584 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE LIMITED, TOWN HALL ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.M.MOHANAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 3. KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSFDC SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.30584 of 2010-W. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3, P9 and P14. The question relates to remission of property tax on the basis of vacant occupation of the building. In Ext.P3 demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent corporation, tax with respect to 28 rooms occupied by the petitioner in the building in question was demanded. The petitioner disputed the liability. Through Ext.P6 the claim for remission of tax was declined. Even though the petitioner had approached the Government, in Ext.P7 the petitioner was given liberty to file appeal before the first respondent Tribunal. It is evident that the petitioner had filed revision before the Tribunal as evidenced from Ext.P13 along with a petition seeking condonation of delay. But the Tribunal had dismissed the delay condonation application by Ext.P14 order, observing that under Sec.8 of the Tribunal Rules the WP(C).No.30584 of 2010-W. 2 power to condone the delay is limited only upto one month. Consequent to dismissal of the IA for condonation of delay, the revision now stands rejected. 2. Without going into the merits of the claim for remission of tax and without considering correctness of the decision taken by the 2nd respondent corporation, I notice that there is some infirmity with respect to the disposal of the delay condonation application. In Ext.P13(a) affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application it is stated that, the revision petition was directly submitted to the Tribunal on 26.11.2009. But the same was returned through order dated 2.12.2009, presumably after noting some defects. It is evident that the intimation regarding the return of the revision petition was received by the petitioner on 9.12.2009. It is further stated that, correspondence were made with the first respondent Tribunal to get back the petition and to file the present revision petition after getting proper legal opinion. Hence it is stated that there WP(C).No.30584 of 2010-W. 3 occurred a delay of 77 days. 3. In the order of the Tribunal (Ext.P14) it is observed that the affidavit is filed as if it is a delay caused in representation. But, since the prayer in the interim application is for condonation of delay of 77 days in filing the revision petition, it was rejected since the power is only available to condone the delay upto one month. It is not clear as to whether the delay occurred in representation of a petition filed earlier. If it is actually a delay in representation, the petitioner ought to have sought condonation of delay in representation, in which case the provisions under Rule 8 may not be applicable. 4. However, it seems that there exist some confusion regarding the correct position. Even though the IA was filed along with the affidavit, it is not clear about the position. Therefore I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to file a proper application seeking condonation of delay before the 2nd respondent. If any such WP(C).No.30584 of 2010-W. 4 application is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the Tribunal shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders with respect to the question regarding condonation of delay. 5. It will be left open to the Tribunal to consider the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petition before this Court while considering the reasons for condonation of delay. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-