Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes.
2. This matter has come to the Full Bench following a reference initially by a learned single Judge noticing that there is an apparent conflict between the decision rendered by the Full Bench in District Collector v. Sreekumari
Kunjamma [2011 (1) KLT 248] and the decision
rendered by the Division Bench in Pavan Kumar v. State
of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT 889]. When that conflict was placed, following due process, before the Division Bench,
since the matter involved the request for consideration of the correctness of a Full Bench decision or an apparent conflict between a Division Bench decision rendered later by interpreting the Full Bench decision rendered earlier, the matter was adjourned to be placed before the Full Bench.
3. However, when this matter is heard by the Full Bench, it is certain that the questions referred to do not arise for decision in this writ petition for the simple reason that the entire structure is owned by a single individual and therefore, the question as to whether there are apartments or flats for application of Explanation II to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 does not arise for decision in the case in hand. We, therefore, notice the reference, but excuse ourselves from answering it in this case because such issue is not only unnecessary to be answered in the case in hand, but cannot be answered without any person aggrieved by a situation relating to flats or apartments being able to present relevant legal issues before this Court in such a reference.
4. In the aforesaid factual scenario, we proceed to look into the merits of the case as well. The petitioner challenged the quantification of the plinth area and determination of the building tax by the initial authority. She carried an appeal to the appellate authority and a revision to the revisional authority. While she charges the statutory authorities of having discharged quasi-judicial function without assigning reasons for the decision rendered by them, we are unable to agree to that plea, having gone through the impugned orders. Beyond this, there is the fact that the authorities have considered the facts which are relevant to arrive at the question as to the rate of building tax. The assessment has been duly made. The revisional order by the District Collector does not call for interference in exercise of authority under Article 226 of the Constitution.
For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/-
C. T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE kns/-
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE