Leela Jose v. the District Collector and 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
This court disposed of a writ petition challenging tax liability due to the death of the petitioner and non-prosecution of the matter during the hearing.
This court disposed of a writ petition challenging tax liability due to the death of the petitioner and non-prosecution of the matter during the hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
WP(C).No. 24155 of 2007 (A)
PETITIONER :
LEELA JOSE, MALIKACKAL PUTHENVEEDU, PALACE WARD, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
2. THE R.D.O., CHENGANNUR.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN PULICKAPARAMBIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.24155/2007
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.
========= = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.24155 of 2007 = = = = = = = == = = = = =
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P2 Assessment Order dated 24-4-2002, fixing the liability under Section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act was declined in Appeal as per Ext.P5 and thereafter in revision, by Ext.P7, referring to the delay involved.
and as such, the challenge is quite wrong and unfounded.
matter is dismissed for non-prosecution.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON . JUDGE
smm
2
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding tax liability should be entertained when there was no representation and the matter was not prosecuted for non-prosecution.
Whether the delay in filing challenges to previous assessment orders bars the petitioner from raising the same issues again.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
LEELA JOSE
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
THE R.D.O., CHENGANNUR
THE TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court