IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 37489 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.DREAM WORLD WATER PARK ATHIRAPPALLY ROAD, CHALAKUDY,TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR SIMON K.FRANCIS. BY ADV.MR.SIBY MATHEW MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK TRICHUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TRICHUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARIYARAM P.O.,CHALAKUDY, TRICHUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.BABU FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 37489 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment of the building under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Aggrieved of the assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, after effecting the initial installment of the liability as prescribed, pursuant to which, the petition for stay was considered and an interim order was passed on 29.04.2005 (Ext.P5) subject to the condition as specified therein . 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority was satisfied and subsequently, re-measurement of the building was ordered, which was conducted by the first respondent, though particulars of the re-measurement were not served on the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader asserts with reference to the statement filed by the second respondent that the re- measurement was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. But the statement filed does not reveal that a copy of the report W.P.(C) No. 37489 OF 2008 2 stated as filed on 17.09.2008 was ever served on the petitioner. That apart, while stating that the report was dated 17.09.2008, the second respondent asserts in paragraph No.4 of the statement that the petitioner was heard in the office of the second respondent on “14.11.2005”, which shows that the hearing conducted by the second respondent was three years prior to the submission of the said report. Obviously, Ext. P6 order, whereby the appeal has been considered and dismissed by the second respondent was passed only on 01.11.2008. Since the date of hearing admittedly was on 14.11.2005, it can be safely presumed that no hearing was conducted by the second respondent after getting the report dated 17.09.2008 on re- measurement and the impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 order passed by the second respondent in the appeal is set aside and the second respondent is hereby directed to consider the appeal dated 22.04.2005 preferred by the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after giving W.P.(C) No. 37489 OF 2008 3 an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be pursued and finalised as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that till such final orders are passed on the appeal as aforesaid, all further coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is further made clear that a copy of the report dated 17.09.2008 stated as filed before the second respondent pursuant to the re-measurement shall be made available to the petitioner, if applied for. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk