The Petitioner in WPC No.32831/04 and his wife are the owners of certain buildings within the limits of Thodupuzha Municipality. Sometime in 1997, they objected to the revision of property tax of one of their buildings, a commercial one, that is, a lodge, hereinafter, the "assessed building," for short and stated in opposition to the demand that the rate at which revision has been made, is unreasonable and exorbitant. They also contended that some of the rooms in that building were left unoccupied. As of now, all those issues are concluded by Ext.R1 (a) in W.P.C. No.32831 of 2004, the judgment dated 17/9/2004 in O.P.No.32528 of 1999, by, which this Court dismissed that Writ Petition After noticing, inter alia, that, following the quinquennial revision in 1997, the petitioner made a representation and on 12/11/1997, the revenue inspector of the Municipality visited the building and placed a report; that thereafter, the petitioner was heard through the counsel and orders were passed on the basis of the said report and that certain relaxation from the original assessment was extended to the petitioner. Such issues are no more available to be opened at the instance of the petitioner, in spite of the allegation that Ext.P1 in W.P.C.No.32831/04, a representation placed on 06/10/1997 is still pending to be disposed of.

2. On account of the failure of the petitioner in W.P.C.No.32831/04 and his wife to pay off the outstanding property tax, the Municipality initiated action for recovery, by attachment of movable properties of the defaulters and, accordingly, seized a motor car from the residential premises of the petitioner in W.P.C.No.32831/04. It is also the allegation of the writ petitioner that certain other movables which were in that car were also seized, though I do not find any record to hold so.

3. W.P.C.No.32332/04 is filed by a financier, holding out an endorsement in the Registration Certificate book of the vehicle in question, to the effect that the vehicle is hypothecated to the said financier.

4. It was, thereafter, that the defaulter filed WPC No.32831/04.

5. During the course of proceedings in these Writ Petitions, this Court had issued an interlocutory order, directing release of the vehicle, on the defaulter furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs.1.5 lakhs. The Municipality took the stand that the bank guarantee furnished was not in the form, that is normally adopted in relation to such matters and they even placed a draft of the proper form along with the counter affidavit. However, the fact remains that there was no proper bank guarantee obtained and placed thereafter, before the Municipality, by the defaulter, and the vehicle in question is still lying in a police station. It is submitted that the Contempt of Court Case filed by the defaulter, alleging that the. Municipality-failed to act on the bank guarantee, was also not entertained by this Court.

6. On the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the defaulter, the petitioner in WPC.No.32831/04, addressed arguments contending that, by virtue of provisions contained in S.237 of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994, hereinafter referred to as the "1994 Act”, arrears of property tax and such dues are the first charge on the immovable property, in relation to which demanded arrear is outstanding and the movables of the defaulter, if any, found therein, and that recovery could be only by distress action against such property. It is urged that there is, therefore, an implied exclusion of all other procedures for recovery of the property tax arrears. It is further urged that there is no lawful authority referable to the 1994 Act for initiation of proceedings, by way of distress action against movables lying in any building of the defaulter, other than the annexed building, in relation to which the arrear of property tax is sought to be recovered. Accordingly, it is contended that the seizure of the motor vehicle from the residential building of the defaulter is an una