IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21407 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.SATHY AMMA, C.C. 39/117-118, SAKETH, KARAKKAMURI CROSS ROAD, COHIN -11. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY COCHIN -11, 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 21407 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 12, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P11, an order rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner, in relation to a dispute regarding the building tax payable by him, on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the requirement of sec.509(11) of the Kerala Municipality Act. 2. Referring to Ext.P10 order passed by the Tribunal on 22.12.2006, petitioner contends that the revision filed by him was returned by the Tribunal by this order with a direction to re-represent the same along with the receipt evidencing remittance of up to date property tax from the second half of 2002-03 adjusting the amount, if any, remitted towards that period. 3. Petitioner contends that in compliance of Ext.P10, remittance has been made and the Corporation also WP(C) 21407/08 2 confirms this position. If that so, petitioner cannot be accused of having not complied with the requirement of sec.509(11). Consequently, the view taken by the Tribunal in Ext.P11 finding the petitioner's non-compliance with the requirement of sec.509(11) cannot be sustained. 4. Ext.P11 will therefore stand set aside and the Tribunal is directed to consider the revision petition No.4/2007 filed by the petitioner on merits, with notice to him and the Corporation and pass orders thereon. 5. In the meanwhile, Ext.P6 order will be kept in abeyance and the Tribunal shall dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-