WP(C) NO. 12680 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:26505 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 12680 OF 2025 PETITIONER : ASOKAN AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. SANKARA NARAYANAN POOVATHUMKADAVIL (H) PANANGADU P.O, THRISSUR, PIN – 6806 65 BY ADVS. K.R.VINOD M.S.LETHA ATHIRA K.S. NAYANA K. SHENOY RESPONDENT : TAHSILDAR KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 664 SMT DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12680 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:26505 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- W.P.(C) No.12680 of 2025 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. On an earlier occasion, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.32920 of 2017 challenging an assessment order dated 13.09.2017. After noticing that the said assessment order was issued on a printed format, without giving any reasons, a learned single Judge of this Court set aside the order by judgment dated 19.11.2024 and directed fresh speaking order to be passed within ten days. Pursuant to the above direction, the impugned order has been issued on 17.01.2025. 3. Sri.K.R.Vinod, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is not a speaking order as directed by this Court and has not considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and is therefore liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Smt.Dr.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader, on the other, contended that the impugned order has considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and if there is any error in WP(C) NO. 12680 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:26505 consideration, the same is a matter to be agitated in an appeal. 5. On a perusal of the impugned order, this Court notices that the contention of the petitioner that the building which is the subject matter of the proceedings, was not even in existence was specifically adverted to and considered. On being satisfied that the building is in existence, tax has been assessed as per the impugned order. Whether there is any error in the appreciation of the contentions raised or not is a matter to be agitated in a statutory appeal. Since the petitioner has an effective remedy before the appellate authority, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies, in accordance with law. In the meantime, the coercive proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of ten days to enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM WP(C) NO. 12680 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:26505 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12680/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2015 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MONEY REMITTANCE RECEIPT DATED 26.08.2015 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 30.03.2017 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 13.09.2017 BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2024 IN W.P.(C).NO.32920/2017 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2025