K.V.Mathew Vs. the Vaikom Muncipality - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1011675
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-14-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
AppellantK.V.Mathew
RespondentThe Vaikom Muncipality
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice s.siri jagan monday, the 14th day of january 2013 24th pousha 193 wp(c).no. 15645 of 2005 (k) --------------------------- petitioner(s): ----------------------- k.v. mathew, s/o. late thomas varghese, kalapurackal, koottiparambil, vaikom, district kottayam. by advs. sri.k.reghu kottappuram, smt.ursula francis. respondent(s): ------------------------- 1. the vaikom municipality, represented by the secretary, vaikom.2. the municipal council, represented by the chairperson, vaikom municipality, vaikom. by advs. sri.george karithanam varghese, sc. sri.joseph a.vadakkel. this writ petition (civil) having been finally heard on 14-01-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: rs. wp(c).no. 15645 of 2005 (k) appendix petitioner's exhibits:- ext.p1 series copy of the building tax receipts dated 03 08/1993 and 01/11/1993. ext.p2 copy of the rent deed dated 05 04/1988 of the ground floor. ext.p3 copy of the rent deed dated 05 04/1988 of the 1st floor. ext.p4 copy of the objection v.m.c.viii/878 dated 17 06/1994 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. ext.p5 copy of the receipt no.783 dated 05 05/1994. ext.p6 copy of the communication no.r.p.xi/57-94-95. ext.p7 copy of the appeal dated 04 10/1994 before the 2nd respondent. ext.p8 copy of the petition for stay dated 04 10/1994. ext.p9 copy of the communication vide a.p.no.vii/24/94-95 dated 17 07/1994. ext.p10 copy of the judgment dated 26 07/2004 in o.p. no. 3186/2005. ext.p11 copy of the order vide v.m3-1032/95 dated 25 10/2004. respondent's exhibits:- nil. //true copy// p.a. to judge rs. s.siri jagan, j.================== w.p.(c).no. 15645 of 2005 ================== dated this the 14th day of january, 2013 judgment the petitioner was assessed to property tax under the municipality act and ext.p6 demand notice was issued to the petitioner. the petitioner filed ext.p7 appeal against the demand before the 2nd respondent municipal council. the petitioner was not informed about any orders on the appeal. the petitioner filed o.p.no. 3186/1995 before this court. in that, by ext.p10 order, the 2nd respondent was directed to intimate the petitioner herein the reasons for not granting full reliefs sought for in ext.p5 appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. pursuant thereto, ext.p11 communication was issued to the petitioner informing him that his appeal was not considered because it was barred by limitation. the learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that insofar as the decision that the petitioner's appeal was barred by limitation was taken without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent may be directed to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.2. i have heard the learned standing counsel for the w.p.c.15645/05 - :2. :- municipality also on this question. the learned standing counsel for the municipality would argue that as per the provisions applicable at the relevant time, the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed at that time. but it is not disputed before me that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard in the appeal. i am of opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of being heard even on the question as to maintainability of the appeal on the ground of limitation . for that purpose, i quash ext.p11 and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider ext.p7 appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. within one month, if there is any defect in the appeal either for non-payment of tax demanded or otherwise, the petitioner shall cure the defect. i hasten to add that i have not considered the question as to maintainability of the appeal on the ground of limitation on merits. the writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- sdk+ s.siri jagan, judge ///true copy/// p.a. to judge w.p.c.15645/05 - :3. :-
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 24TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 15645 of 2005 (K) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.V. MATHEW, S/O. LATE THOMAS VARGHESE, KALAPURACKAL, KOOTTIPARAMBIL, VAIKOM, DISTRICT KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM, SMT.URSULA FRANCIS. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VAIKOM.

2. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, VAIKOM. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE, SC. SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 15645 of 2005 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 SERIES COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 03 08/1993 AND 01/11/1993. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 05 04/1988 OF THE GROUND FLOOR. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 05 04/1988 OF THE 1ST FLOOR. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION V.M.C.VIII/878 DATED 17 06/1994 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.783 DATED 05 05/1994. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.R.P.XI/57-94-95. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 04 10/1994 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY DATED 04 10/1994. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE A.P.NO.VII/24/94-95 DATED 17 07/1994. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26 07/2004 IN O.P. NO. 3186/2005. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE V.M3-1032/95 DATED 25 10/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

================== W.P.(C).No. 15645 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 14th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT

The petitioner was assessed to property tax under the Municipality Act and Ext.P6 demand notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal against the demand before the 2nd respondent Municipal Council. The petitioner was not informed about any orders on the appeal. The petitioner filed O.P.No. 3186/1995 before this Court. In that, by Ext.P10 order, the 2nd respondent was directed to intimate the petitioner herein the reasons for not granting full reliefs sought for in Ext.P5 appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P11 communication was issued to the petitioner informing him that his appeal was not considered because it was barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that insofar as the decision that the petitioner's appeal was barred by limitation was taken without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent may be directed to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the w.p.c.15645/05 - :

2. :- Municipality also on this question. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality would argue that as per the provisions applicable at the relevant time, the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed at that time. But it is not disputed before me that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard in the appeal. I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of being heard even on the question as to maintainability of the appeal on the ground of limitation . For that purpose, I quash Ext.P11 and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Within one month, if there is any defect in the appeal either for non-payment of tax demanded or otherwise, the petitioner shall cure the defect. I hasten to add that I have not considered the question as to maintainability of the appeal on the ground of limitation on merits. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.15645/05 - :

3. :-