Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SREE NARAYANA BHAKTHA PARIPALANA YORAM versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SREE NARAYANA BHAKTHA PARIPALANA YORAM v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 23531 of 1998(B) [2007] RD-KL 15332 (9 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 23531 of 1998(B)

1. SREE NARAYANA BHAKTHA PARIPALANA YORAM
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.PUSHPARAJAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :09/08/2007

O R D E R

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... O.P. No. 23531 OF 1998 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 9th August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.: Petitioner claims that it is a society registered under the provisions of the Act 11 of 1088 of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, as a charitable organisation. In this Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-society seek the following reliefs, they are as under:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4 notice issued by the 3rd respondent and Ext.P5 assessment. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondents to exempt the buildings -Shopping Complex and Sree Narayana Auditorium from the payment of building tax as exempted under the Building Tax Act and the Rules. iii) Stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 notice dated 16.10.1998. "

2. At the time of hearing of this Original Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner-society very fairly submits that he is not pressing for an answer O.P. No. 23531 OF 1998 2 to prayer No.(ii).

3. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel, we are not answering prayer No.2 in this Original Petition.

4. What remains now is only the challenge against the orders of assessment passed by the Tahsildar (Ext.P5) under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act and the notice issued pursuant thereto.

5. If, for any reason, the petitioner-society is aggrieved by the orders of assessment passed by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act and notice of demand issued pursuant thereto, necessarily petitioner-society has to question those orders of assessment and notice of demand, by filing an appropriate appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The remedy provided under the Act is not only effective but also efficacious. Without exhausting the remedy available to the petitioner-society under the Act, petitioner could not have approached this court.

6. In view of the above, the following:

O R D E R



i) In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-society, prayer No.2 raised in this Original Petition is rejected. ii) If for any reason, the petitioner-society is aggrieved by the orders of assessment passed by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar and the notice of demand issued pursuant thereto , petitioner- Society is permitted to file an appropriate appeal within 30 days from today. iii) If such an appeal is filed within the time granted by this court, O.P. No. 23531 OF 1998 3 the appellate authority shall decide the appeal only on merits without reference to the period of limitation. iv) All other contentions raised in this Original Petition are left open.

v) Pending Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are also disposed of. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk O.P. No. 23531 OF 1998 4 H.L. DATTU, C.J.&

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

....................................................... O.P. No. 23531 OF 1998 .......................................................

Dated this the 9th August, 2007



J U D G M E N T


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.