Jose vs The State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 23224 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 23224 Ker
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2024

Kerala High Court

Jose vs The State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 27596 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1       JOSE,
            AGED 50 YEARS,
            S/O DEVASSYKUTTY, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS CHEMBAKASSERY
            HOUSE, THANISSERY P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
            PIN - 680 701.
    2       DALLY,
            AGED 49 YEARS,
            W/O JOSE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE,
            THANISSERY P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 701.
            BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
            LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
    2       THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPAL
            OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
            PIN - 680 121.
    3       THE SECRETARY,
            IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY, IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPAL
            OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
            PIN - 680 121.
    4       THE CHAIRPERSON,
            STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE, IRINJALAKUDA
            MUNICIPALITY, IRINJALAKUDA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
            PIN - 680 121.

            BY SRI.CHANDRANPILLAI (SR.)
            ADV.S.AMBILY
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 27596 OF 2024
                                  2

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by

Ext.P10 order of the Secretary of the Irinjalakuda Municipality

communicating to the petitioners a decision of the Standing

Committee for Finance regarding the levy of property tax on certain

buildings belonging to the petitioners. It is the case of the

petitioners that Ext.P10 is illegal on several grounds, including on

the ground that the building has been wrongly classified under the

category of shopping malls, for which there is no statutory

definition in any provision of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994

(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1994 Act') or in any Rules framed

thereunder.

2. Sri.K.K.Chandranpillai, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Municipality, on the instructions of Adv.

S.Ambily, would submit that the decision of the Standing

Committee for Finance, as communicated to the petitioner by the

Secretary of the Municipality, can be challenged by filing a Revision

under Section 509(8) of the 1994 Act before the Tribunal for Local

Self Government Institutions. He also referred to the provisions of

Rule 16(7) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax WP(C) NO. 27596 OF 2024

and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 in this regard. He submits that every

contention taken in the writ petition can be considered by the

Tribunal and there is no ground made out to bypass the statutory

remedy.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Municipality, I am of the view that the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Municipality is right in contending that every

ground raised in this writ petition to challenge the decision taken by

the Standing Committee for Finance and communicated by the

Secretary of the Municipality to the petitioner can be taken in a

Revision Petition before the Tribunal for Local Self Government

Institutions. The decision is not challenged on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction or on the ground of violation of principles of natural

justice. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to entertain a

challenge to Ext.P10 bypassing an efficacious remedy available to

the petitioner under Section 509(8) of the 1994 Act. Since Ext.P10

order was passed on 02.04.2024, it is directed that if the petitioner

were to prefer a Revision Petition against Ext.P10, within a period

of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment, the said Revision Petition shall be considered as one filed WP(C) NO. 27596 OF 2024

in time and the Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the matter, in

accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK WP(C) NO. 27596 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27596/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN THE HEARING OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 23.03.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W P C NO. 24380 OF 2022 DATED 29.07.2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.05.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY DATED 31.03.2023 Exhibit p6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED DATED 30.05.2024 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF RATES FIXED BY THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY DATED NIL Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN THE TIMES OF INDIA DATED NIL Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY DATED 12.10.2017 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.04.2024