IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22286 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. APPU PANICIKER, TRIVENI RAM NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. 2. SANTHA PANICKER, W/O. APPU PANICKER, TRIVENI RAM NAGER, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. 3. SAJEEV KUMAR, S/O. APPU PANICKER, TRIVENI RAM NAGER, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR. P.BHASKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR 3. THE THASILDHAR, CHAVAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22286 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The assessment finalized by the 3rd respondent under the relevant provisions of Kerala Building Tax Act was subjected to challenge by filing statutory appeal before the second respondent. After considering the merits involved, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded by the second respondent to 3rd respondent as borne by Ext. P5. Accordingly, it was reconsidered by the 3rd respondent; who still chose to sustain the earlier stand and passed Ext. P6 order, which in turn was challenged by filing Ext P7 appeal before the second respondent. However, the second respondent observed that since the earlier appeal had already been considered and disposed of vide Ext. P5 order dated 5.8.2005 and it was accordingly that the, third respondent reconsidered the matter and passed Ext. P6 order, there was no scope for any further challenge and dismissed Ext. P7 appeal as borne by Ext. P8, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Taking note of the admitted fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner as borne by Ext. P7, challenging Ext. P6 order is very W.P. (C) No. 22286 of 2010 : 2 : much in tune with the statutory prescription in respect of the appellate remedy available to the petitioner, the refusal of Ext. P7 by the second respondent for the mere fact that, earlier appeal preferred by the petitioner had already been entertained and remanded, is not a ground for refusing to exercise of jurisdiction cast upon the second respondent as per the relevant provisions of the Statute. 4. In the above circumstances, Ext. P8 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P7 appeal on merit, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of . P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd