IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17416 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR.SOMAN PETER, "SHANGRILA", POWER HOUSE ROAD, COCHIN-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 17416 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the delay in finalising the proceedings with regard to fixation of liability under the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. The petitioner, along with his wife and son, constructed a three storeyed building consisting of three separate apartments in the land jointly owned by them, contributing funds from different sources and the same has been numbered by the Corporation/local authority separately. Inspite of the factual position as above, the assessment was completed by the first respondent fixing the entire liability upon the petitioner (even before completion of the construction) treating the whole building as a single unit. This was subjected to challenge by filing appeal before the RDO, which however did not turn to be fruitful as borne by Ext. P10. In the said circumstances, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the second respondent as W.P.(C) No. 17416 OF 2010 2 borne by Ext.P11 . The case was posted for hearing on 16.02.2010, on which date it was sought to be adjourned to 10.03.2010. It is contended in paragraph No.16 of the Writ petition that, when the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 10.03.2010, the case had already been called and was stated as dismissed for default; whereupon, the Counsel filed a representation seeking to re- call the order, if any. However, the petitioner was served with Ext.P12 order dated 16.03.2010, stating that the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected 'as ex parte', which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well 4. The materials on record reveal that the petitioner has been prosecuting the case availing the statutory remedy by way of 'Appeal' and Revision. It is only pursuant to dismissal of the Revision Petition vide Ext. P12, that the petitioner became constrained to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Going by the contents of Ext. P12, it is seen that there is absolutely no mention anywhere as to the subsequent course W.P.(C) No. 17416 OF 2010 3 and events, after the alleged non-appearance of the petitioner on 10.03.2010. Obviously, the Revision Petition was dismissed on '16.03.2010' since the petitioner was not present on '10.03.2010'. There is a reference about the Petition dated 11.03.2010 filed by the counsel for the petitioner, as given under item No.2. Nothing has been mentioned in the said order as to the contents of the said petition or as to the non- consideration of the said petition by the second respondent/statutory authority. The fact remains that the dismissal of the Revision Petition, ordered on 16.03.2010, was after filing the petition dated 11.03.2010. Since the revisional authority did not choose to dismiss the matter on 10.03.2010 itself, allegedly for the absence of the revision petitioner and that the final order was chosen to be passed only on 16.03.2010, the said authority ought to have considered the subsequent developments, particularly the application preferred by the Counsel on 11.03.2010. Though the said petition has been referred to, the prayer or the consequence has not been discussed anywhere in Ext.P12. This persuades this Court to W.P.(C) No. 17416 OF 2010 4 hold that the matter requires to be considered on merits . 5. In the above circumstances, Ext. P12 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider Ext. P11 Revision Petition on merits, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The proceedings as above shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the second respondent so as to fix the date of hearing. It is made clear that no further coercive steps shall be pursued against the petitioner in connection with the above cause of action, till finalisation of the proceedings as above, more so, since the petitioner has already satisfied 50% of the liability by this time. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk