IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6526 of 2011(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MOHAMMED ILLYAS, S/O.(LATE)MOHAMMED, 40/7999, PARK VIEW, CONVENT JUNCTION, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. BY ADVS. SRI.SHAHUL HAMEED MOOPPAN, SRI.T.A.NIYAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP. BY SECRETARY, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. R1 & R 2BY ADV. SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH,S.C, COCHIN CORPORATION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 6526 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner and his brothers are occupying certain rooms in a multi-storied commercial-cum-residential building located at Market Road, Convent Junction, Ernakulam situated in the property comprised in Sy.No.666/2,3 of Ernakulam village. The said building was assessed to property tax with effect from 2008-2009- 2nd half year and tax in respect of 2008-2009, 2nd half year was paid. In terms of Section 239(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, if the building lies vacant for half an year, the owner is entitled to remission of tax for that half year. With a view to avail the said benefit, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 application before the second respondent. It is aggrieved by the inaction on Ext.P1 application that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Ext.P1 application has been received by the respondents and it is still pending. In W.P.(C) NO.6526/2011 2 the said circumstances, I am of the view that it would be unnecessary to consider the contentions raised in this Writ Petition on merits at this stage. Since second respondent is the competent authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 and it is still pending, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by a decision of this Court reported in John v. State of Kerala (2006(4) KLT 932). While considering Ext.P1, the second respondent shall also consider the applicability of the said decision into the facts of the case. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.6526/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.6526/2011 4