IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38432 of 2010(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUBHA JAYAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAPPAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI,KOCHI. BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SMT. RABIA BEEGUM T.K, SRI. JOBI.A. THAMPI, SMT.KABANI DINESH.M. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOCHI – 682 013. 3. TAHASILDAR, KOCHI,FORT KOCHI-682 001. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAKOCHI-682 006. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.38432 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the assessment of the building tax. Aggrieved by the original assessment, finally, the matter was taken up in Ext.P5 revision petition. After the institution of this Writ petition, the petitioner was served with Ext.P10 order whereby Ext.P5 revision petition was dismissed. Subsequently, I.A.No.728/2011 was filed for amending the Writ Petition so as to challenge Ext.P10 and the same was allowed. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that Ext.P5 revision petition was posted for hearing on 27.10.2010. However, no hearing was conducted on that date. On 29.9.2010, Ext.P5 revision petition was posted for hearing on 3.11.2010. On that date, both the petitioner and his counsel were absent. It was on the said ground that Ext.P5 was dismissed. Evidently, no proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. As is obvious from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the date for hearing of Ext.P5 was notified only on W.P.(C) NO.38432/2010 2 29.10.2010 as 3.11.2010. Apparently, there was no proper notice of hearing. In short, no decision was taken on Ext.P5 on merits. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P10 and to remit the matter for fresh consideration. To enable the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 revision petition afresh on merits and after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner, Ext.P10 is set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 revision petition afresh with notice to the petitioner. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, coercive steps for recovery based on the original assessment shall be kept in abeyance. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.38432/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.38432/2010 4