IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 31204 of 2001(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KIZHAKKATHPARAMBIL ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MOHAMMED, ABDUL AZEEZ FURNITURE & SAW MILL, PAIMKANNUR.P.O., VALANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, TIRUR TALUK. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY SHRI.K.P.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 31204/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO.50804/2001 IN O.P.NO.31204/2001. DISMISSED. 08/01/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE. P2 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 25/07/2001 SUBMITTED BY PETIITONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P4 : COY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- O.P. No. 31204 of 2001 ------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging building tax assessment , in respect of building with a plinth area of 1497.84 sq.m., assessed as Kalyanamandapam. Petitioner’s case is that petitioner has a saw- mill nearby and wants to start a workshop in the building. However, in the counter affidavit, it is clearly stated that the building in question is used as kalyanamandapam and is being let out for public meetings also. Learned Government Pleader has stated that, on enquiry it was proved that marriages were held on 03/06/2001, 05/09/2001 and 04/11/2001 and a marriage reception was held on 14/11/2001 in the building. He has further stated that a study camp of Block Youth Congress party was conducted in the building on 14th & 15th September 2001. It is further reported that the building is given the name ‘Taj Palace Auditorium’ by the petitioner. In the circumstances, petitioner’s case that the building is proposed to be used as factory based on SSI certificate is a bogus claim. This original petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg