IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1466 of 2005(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.K.ABDUL MAJEED, MANNAKKARA CHALIL HOUSE, KADIRUR POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.VINOD RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE TAHASILDAR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KERALA BUILDING TAX, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.D.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1466 OF 2005-Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10/10/2004 / TRUE COPY / HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2005-Y ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a building owner. This writ petition is filed challenging the alleged arbitrary levy of building tax on hotel building assessment by the revenue department as evidenced by Ext.P1. The first two prayers relate to the constitutional validity of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 ('the Act” for short) and the provisions thereto. The constitutional validity of the Act was upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Sundari Bai Alias Radha Bai v. State of Kerala (1978 K.L.T.931). Therefore, the constitutional validity under challenge cannot be entertained. The next prayer in the writ petition is for quashing Ext.P1 assessment order. Ext.P1 assessment order was passed under the provisions of the Act. The said order is subject to statutory appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer and revision to the District Collector. The petitioner has not availed of any of the remedies under the provisions of the Act. Even then, in the interests of justice, the petitioner is given an opportunity to file an appeal if he proposes to challenge Ext.P1 order. If such an appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2005 2 appellate authority shall consider the same on merits without examining the question of delay in filing the appeal, since the delay was occasioned due to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. Writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE vns