IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27888 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- G.INDIRA DEVI,AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.G.RAGHAVAN NAIR, T.C. 9/885(11),FLAT NO. 2C, NIKUNJAN HARMONY,VELLAYAMBALAM-SASTHAMANGALAM MAIN ROAD,SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010 BY ADV. MR.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 146 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 146 3. REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 146 ADV. MR.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-3 MR.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27888 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INDEX SHEET NO.R5/E5/38180/10 DATED 9.5.2011 IN RESPECT OF TC 9/885(3) EXT.P1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INDEX SHEET NO.R5/E5/38180/10 DATED 9.5.2011 IN RESPECT OF TC 9/885(4) EXT.P1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INDEX SHEET NO.R5/E5/38180/10 DATED 9.5.2011 IN RESPECT OF TC 9/885(5) EXT.P1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INDEX SHEET NO.R5/E5/38180/10 DATED 9.5.2011 IN RESPECT OF TC 9/885(7) EXT.P1(E): TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INDEX SHEET NO.R5/E5/38180/10 DATED 9.5.2011 IN RESPECT OF TC 9/885(8) EXT.P1(F): TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INDEX SHEET NO.R5/E5/38180/10 DATED 9.5.2011 IN RESPECT OF TC 9/885(13) EXT.P1(G): TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INDEX SHEET NO.R5/E5/38180/10 DATED 9.5.2011 IN RESPECT OF TC 9/885(16) EXT.P1(H): TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INDEX SHEET NO.R5/E5/38180/10 DATED 9.5.2011 IN RESPECT OF TC 9/885(31) EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 18.5.2011 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT NO.64703 DATED 19.5.2011 ISSUED FROM THE CORPORATION EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (NOTICE) NO.R5-64703/11 DATED 9.6.2011 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE ` 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.6.2011 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (NOTICE) NO.R5/64703/11 R5/79406/11 DATED 19.7.2011 EXT.P6(A): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 2.8.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO TC 9/885(4) (CNTD.......2) WP(C).No. 27888 of 2011(I) ::2:: EXT.P6(B): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 2.8.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE WND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO TC 9/885 (5) EXT.P6(C): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 2.8.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE WND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO TC 9/885 (7) EXT.P6(D): TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 2.8.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE WND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO TC 9/885 (8) EXT.P7: NOTICE NO.R5/E5/38180/10.APL/R5/116569 DTD. 14.10.2011. EXT.P8: POSTAL COVER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE 1: DECISION II(1) OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE DTD. 16.9.2011 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN APPEAL, STANDING COMMITTEE, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ..... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.27888 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P3 & P5 orders and for a direction commanding the 2nd respondent to allow vacancy remission as requested in Exts.P2 & P4 applications. 2. The petitioner submitted an application for vacancy remission. The respondent Corporation rejected the request by Ext.P3 order dated 9.6.2011 for the first half year of 2011-2012. The reason for rejection as per Ext.P3 is that the application should have been submitted before the commencement of the 2nd half year. Subsequently, Ext.P4 application was filed stating that there is no delay in submitting the application and reiterated the request for vacancy remission. The Corporation did not entertain Ext.P4 application and rejected the same at the threshold by Ext.P5 order. Exts.P3 & P5 orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Petitioner submits that she applied for vacancy remission at the earliest point of time after assessment of the ::2:: W.P.(C).No.27888 Of 2011 building. The petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in John v. State of Kerala (2006 (4) KLT 932). In the said decision this Court held as follows: “An assessee can be said to have committed default in payment of the tax only if he fails to remit the same within 30 days from the commencement of the half year period. If the building had been vacant and unlet for a half year, the assessee can get refund of the tax even if he had paid in advance; or he can request for adjustment of the tax paid by him towards tax payable for the succeeding half year. A rigid or pedantic interpretation cannot be imported in the matter of notice or intimation to be furnished by the assessee with regard to non occupancy. Previous notice only means that the owner shall inform the authority concerned about the non occupancy sufficiently early and before makes a claim of remission of tax. Such notice must necessarily be within the grace period of 30 days provided or payment of tax. Prior notice stipulated has to be read and understood in consonance or harmony with the provisions in Section 238 of the Act. An application for remission of tax, if submitted within 30 days from the commencement of the relevant half year period, has to be treated as within time.” ::3:: W.P.(C).No.27888 Of 2011 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Section 233(15) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Sub Section 15 reads as follows: “(15). The annual property tax assessed in respect of a building shall be payable in two half-yearly instalments. The instalment in respect of any half-year shall be paid on or before the last day of the said half- year and if not paid within that date penalty under sun- section (2) of Section 538 shall be applicable from the next day: Provided that there is no bar for one time payment of annual property tax in the first half-year itself.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Corporation failed to take note of the relevant provisions and principles of law on the issue and failed to entertain the application for remission illegally and therefore, the matter may be directed to be reconsidered. In the light of the provisions and principles quoted above, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. In the facts and circumstances stated above, Exts.P3 & P5 orders are set aside. Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd ::4:: W.P.(C).No.27888 Of 2011 respondent to consider Exts.P2 & P4 applications afresh and pass appropriate orders, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-