The petitioner claims to be the owner of room Nos.32/UA, 659, J1 and J2 in ward No.32 of Kayamkulam Municipality. According to the petitioner, the sheds in question were constructed only to protect the vehicles of the inmates from sun and rain. The first respondent municipality issued a notice dated 16.8.2013 intimating the petitioner that the said constructions are liable to be taxed. Pursuant to its receipt, the petitioner submitted an application dated 30.8.2013 before the first respondent seeking exemption from the levy of building tax. Virtually, that application was rejected and Ext.P3 notice was served on the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal dated 24.12.2013 before the first respondent. During the pendency of Ext.P4 appeal, the petitioner also preferred another appeal viz., Ext.P6. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to direct the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 appeal, expeditiously.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It is specifically stated therein that Exts.P4 and P6 appeals were already considered and rejected and the orders passed on such appeals were duly communicated to the petitioner. The respondents have taken up a further contention that the said orders are revisable in terms of section 509(8) of the Kerala Municipality Act. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that copies of the said orders were not received by the petitioner, the learned standing counsel submitted that the records would reveal that those orders were duly received. The learned standing counsel made available copies of the relevant records which would reveal that in fact copies of the orders were duly received by the petitioner. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the orders passed by the first respondent on Exts.P4 and P6 appeals are revisable. In fact, I am at a loss to understand how the petitioner could have filed Ext.P6 appeal when Ext.P4 appeal was pending against Ext.P3. Whatever that be, when the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy under the statute to assail the orders passed in the appeals, the petitioner has to avail the statutory remedy by filing a proper revision petition against Ext.P3 in case she desires to do so. In such circumstances, leaving the petitioner at liberty to challenge the orders passed in Ext.P4 and P6 appeals, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010