This writ petition has been filed raising grievance against the assessment of property tax by the first respondent Corporation in respect of a multi-storeyed building bearing Door Nos.949/1 to 949/15 in Ward No.11 of Thrissur Corporation. For the period from 2009-10 to 2011-12 an amount of ` 20,74,259 was demanded. The petitioner, the Managing Director of `Joys Enterprises' is the owner of the aforesaid multi-storeyed building. The contention of the petitioner is that the property tax assessed is exorbitant and in respect of certain other buildings lying within the limits of the first respondent Corporation having a plinth area more than that of the building belongs to the petitioner the property tax was levied at a lesser rate. Taking into account such contentions this Court was about to admit this writ petition and at that point of time it was brought to my notice that earlier, against the same assessment the petitioner had moved this Court in his capacity as the Managing Director of `Joys Enterprises' by filing W.P. (C)No.6817 of 2013 and that writ petition was dismissed as per judgment dated 10th December 2013. A perusal of the judgment in W.P.
(C)No.6817 of 2013 would reveal that after consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner this Court arrived at the finding that no ground was made by the petitioner to invite interference and accordingly, dismissed it. In the opening paragraph of the writ petition itself the petitioner has stated that he is the Managing Director of `Joys Enterprises'. At the same time, a scanning of the contentions and averments in the writ petition would reveal that there is absolute absence of any whisper regarding the fact that he had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6817 of 2013 and that writ petition was dismissed by this Court as per judgment dated 10th December, 2013. In other words, the petitioner has suppressed the said crucial material. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that this Court would decline jurisdiction in respect of a person who approaching this Court with unclean hands. The learned counsel for the petitioner would now, fairly submit that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6817 of 2013. However, the contention is that the order of assessment is not under challenge in this writ petition though it was challenged in the earlier writ petition. At the same time, a scanning of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition would reveal that the precise contention of the petitioner is that the assessment of property tax is exorbitant and in the case of other buildings having more plinth area than that of the building belongs to the petitioner the tax was levied at a lesser rate. After raising such contentions the petitioner cannot be heard to say that this writ petition does not carry a grievance against the levying of property tax. True that, the petitioner is not mounting a direct challenge against the order levying the tax, at the same time, he is attempting to achieve the same by indirectly challenging the assessment. Such an attempt is made by the petitioner raising the contention of discrimination and at the same time, as noticed hereinbefore, he has wilfully suppressed the fact that in his capacity as the Managing Director of the company he has approached this Court raising grievance and challenge against the levy of property tax in respect of the building in question. The said action on the part of the petitioner cannot be permitted to escape unpunished. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance about the fact that earlier in respect of the assessment of the property tax in respect of the building in question a writ petition had been filed as he himself is the Managing Director of `Joys Enterprises' and it was he who moved the earlier writ petition in his capacity as Managing Director of `Joys Enterprises'. In the said circumstances, inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner has wilfully suppressed the said fact and the said attempt on the part of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of court. In such circumstances, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs and I fix the costs at ` 10000 (Rupees Ten thousand only). The petitioner shall pay the said amount to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to remit the said amount with the High Court Legal Services Committee within the above stipulated time the Registrar of this Court shall issue appropriate certificate to enable the Secretary to realise the said amount, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS