IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6817 of 2009(V) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.GIRIRAJAN 'DHANUSH' THAZHE KUNNAMKERI, CHEVAYUR, CALICUT-17 BY ADV. MR.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR. 2. THE STANDING COMMITTEE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY ,KANNUR. MR. K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.6817 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a property, which has been assessed to property tax under the Kerala Municipality Act. The assessment was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing a revision. The revision was returned by the Tribunal as defective, since the tax upto date was not remitted and the petitioner was directed to cure the defect within 15 days. The time to re-present the revision after curing the defect was extended for further period of 15 days on an application made by the petitioner. The said time limit expired on 25.7.2008. The petitioner remitted the entire tax on 18.7.2008. But the original tax receipt was misplaced by the advocate clerk at Kannur. The same was traced out and the revision petition was re-presented along with the tax receipt. But the Tribunal by Ext.P4, dismissed the revision petition as per the proviso to Rule 8 of the Kerala Local Self Government Tribunal Rules on the ground that the power of the Tribunal to condone W.P.(c)No.6817/09 2 delay is limited to one month. The petitioner submits that the condonation of delay for re-presentation of the revision petition is not under Rule 8 and therefore, Ext.P4 order is unsustainable. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality also. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the revision in time. But the representation after curing the defect only was delayed. 3. In view of the peculiar circumstances, especially the circumstance that the tax due was remitted before the expiry of the extended period granted by the Tribunal, exercising my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I quash Ext.P4 and direct the Tribunal to entertain the revision on merits, after condoning the delay in representation of the same, if the same is otherwise in order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.6817/09 3