Kerala High Court
Dr.B.Sukumar vs Nit Calicut on 17 June, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY,THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/16TH CHAITHRA, 1938
W.P.(C).No.9624 of 2016 (C)
-------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-
-------------------------
DR.B.SUKUMAR, S/O.SHRI.S.B.PILLAI, AGED 54 YEARS,
REGISTRAR, NIT CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT - 673 601.
BY ADVS. SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
SRI.JEFRIN MANUEL
SMT.MEDONA LOPEZ
RESPONDENT(S):-
---------------------------
1. NIT CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR,
NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT - 673 601.
2. BOARD OF GOVERNORS, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON,
NIT CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT - 673 601.
3. THE DIRECTOR, NIT CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT - 673 601.
R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN
SRI.C.M.ANDREWS
SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.9624 of 2016 (C)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF THE RULES AND RELEVANT PAGE
OF NITC STAFF ACCOMMODATION ALLOTMENT RULES.
P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 28TH BOG DTD 9/1/2015 OF THE
IST RESPONDENT NIT.
P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 29TH BOG DTD 21/11/2015 OF NIT
CALICUT.
P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA OF 30TH GOB DTD 5/2/2016 OF THE NIT
CALICUT
P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE INQUIRY
COMMITTEE.
P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 30TH BOG DTD 5/2/2016 OF THE NIT
CALICUT.
P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT DTD 24/2/2016.
P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER AFTER
DEDUCTING HRA, FOR THE MONTH FEBRUARY 2016.
P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER AFTER
DEDUCTING HRA, FOR THE MONTH FEBRUARY 2016.
P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DT.26.2.2016 REGARDING
APPOINTMENT OF T MEMBER COMMITTEE.
P11:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DT.20.02.2013
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NIT REGARDING REVISION OF THE
RENT OF THE SINGLE ROOM SUIT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-
-----------------------------------------
R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION DTD.15.01.2014 PUBLISHED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DT.11.06.2014
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
WP(C).No.9624 of 2016 (C) - 2 -
R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.6/8/2009-ESTT (PAYII)
DATED 17.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES &
PENSIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF ACCOMMODATION ALLOTMENT RULES.
R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.2(25)/2004-E.II(B)
DATED 15.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.29.02.2016 ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER.
R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE
29TH MEETING OF THE BoG.
R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DT.23.02.2016 REGARDING APPROVAL
FOR CIRCULATION.
R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DT.23.02.2016 ATTACHING THE
DRAFT MINUTES.
R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAILS DTD.25.02.2016 AND 26.02.2016.
R1(k) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DTD.23.01.2002 NO.P1/2356/99
FIXING RATE OF RENT.
R1(l) TRUE COPOY OF THE CASH BILL FOR LODGING DT.06.03.2016
PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER.
vku/- [ true copy ]
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
.............................................................
W.P.(C).No.9592 of 2016
.............................................................
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 assessment order and Ext.P7 demand notice that has been served on the petitioner under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that while he had claimed exemption in respect of a building that was put up by him and it was the subject matter of assessment under Ext.P6 order, the decision on the entitlement of the petitioner for exemption was taken by the 1st respondent and not referred to the 3rd respondent as was mandated by the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find from Ext.P6 order that the claim of the petitioner for exemption under the -2- W.P.(C). No.9592 of 2016 Kerala Building Tax Act has been rejected by the 1st respondent assessing authority. As per the scheme of the Building Tax Act, a claim for exemption preferred by an assessee has necessarily to be referred by the assessing authority to the Government for its decision. The Kerala Building Tax Act does not envisage a situation where the assessing authority can decide upon the claim for exemption. Under the said circumstances, I quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 1st respondent to refer the claim for exemption to the 3rd respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 3rd respondent shall thereafter pass orders on the claim for exemption preferred by the petitioner within a further period of two months. Before passing orders as directed, the 3rd respondent shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The 1st respondent shall complete the assessment of the petitioners building in accordance with the Kerala Building Tax Act after receipt of orders from the 3rd respondent on the issue of exemption. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, as well as a copy of the writ petition, before the 1st and 3rd respondents for further action.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/28.3.16 -3- W.P.(C). No.9592 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 9630 of 2016 (C)
--------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------
DAISY BABU JOHN, 58 YEARS, W/O. BABU JOHN, PALATHUMPATTU VEEDU, THITTAMEL, CHENGANUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENTS:
--------------
SECRETARY, CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. BY SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN,SC,CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- WP(C).No. 9630 of 2016 (C)
---------------------------
APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMISSION GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT. P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGANUR DT. 15.6.2006.
P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGANUR DT. 25.8.205.
P4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHENGANUR.
P5 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ENDING BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
P6 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND COMPLETED BUILDINGS. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :NIL
-----------------------
TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE AL/-
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
================== W.P.(C) No.9630 of 2016 ================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2016 JUDGMENT The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation for numbering the building jointly owned by the petitioner and his son. It is submitted that Ext.P5 is pending before the respondent from December 2015. No orders have been passed thereon. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plot on which construction is carried out was converted much earlier and that Ext.P4 certificate is also issued by the Agricultural Field Officer stating that the property cannot be utilised for any cultivation.
In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The nature and present lie of the property and the grant of permits in respect of other properties in the vicinity shall also be taken into consideration while passing orders as directed above.
Sd/-
al+ ANU JUDGE
SIVARAMAN
True copy
P.S to Judge