IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 OP.No. 9995 of 2001(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- P.M.REGHU, S/O.K.MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 53, PUNTHALAVILA, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM – 19. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM. 2. THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW - R3 ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC FOR R1 & R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NOS.16095 & 37196/2001 IN OP.NO.9995/2001 M DISMISSED 29/08/2008 SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 20/05/1998 ISSUED BY THE KOLLAM NAGARA SABHA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EXT.P1 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 8/06/1998. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P2. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.1/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE KOLLAM MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EXT.P4 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 2/03/2000. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P5. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/02/2001 ISSUED BY THE KOLLAM CORPORATION. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EXT.P7 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 8/03/2001. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN EVIDENCING RECEIPT EXT.P8. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- O.P. No.9995 of 2001 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 29th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers:- “(i) Declare that Exts.P1, P4 and P7 are grossly illegal, violative of section 539 of the Municipalities Act, barred by limitation and issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P1, P4 and P7 as illegal and void ab-initio. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to assess the building belonging to the petitioner in accordance with law giving him an opportunity of being heard.” Learned Standing Counsel, referring to the statement submits that despite several notices issued by the first respondent, the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner prays for an opportunity before the revisional authority. Having regard to the facts as stated in the writ petition, it is only appropriate that the petitioner is given an opportunity as prayed for. Accordingly, the order passed in the revision filed by the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner will present himself before the first respondent on 20.10.2008. After hearing the petitioner, the first respondent will pass fresh orders in the matter. The amount already remitted by the petitioner will be duly adjusted. OP NO. 9995/01 2 In case the petitioner does not present himself or through an agent duly authorized on 20.10.2008, the impugned order will stand confirmed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- O.P. No.9995 of 2001 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 29th August, 2008.