Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K.ABDULRAHIMAN versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K.ABDULRAHIMAN v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - WA No. 408 of 2005 [2007] RD-KL 11388 (27 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 408 of 2005()

1. P.K.ABDULRAHIMAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR (ASSESSING AUTHORITY),

For Petitioner :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

Dated :27/06/2007

O R D E R

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

W.A.No.408 of 2005

Dated, this the 27th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L. DATTU, CJ. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.34745 of 2004 dated 20th January, 2005. By the impugned order the learned Judge has only directed the petitioner to file an appeal as provided under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The learned Judge has also directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount demanded by the 2nd respondent as a condition precedent before filing the appeal.

2. Ext.P7 is the order of assessment passed by the Tahsildar. If for any reason the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, necessarily and naturally he should file an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the Act. Without doing so, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the writ petition. Keeping all these aspects in view, the learned Judge has disposed of the writ petition.

3. We do not see any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which calls for our interference in this appeal. Accordingly this appeal requires to be rejected. However, we make it clear that the 25% of the amount that may be paid by the petitioner while filing the appeal shall be refunded to the petitioner in the event the petitioner W.A. No.408/2005 2 succeeds in the appeal. We dispose of this writ appeal with permission to the petitioner to file an appeal as directed by the learned Single Judge within four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the time granted by this court, the appellate authority shall decide the matter on merits without referring to the period of limitation. All the contentions are left open. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

mt / DK.


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.