JUDGMENT :

(Murali Purushothaman, J.)

1. This writ petition is filed by the State and the Revenue Divisional Officer challenging Ext.P9 report of the Kerala Lok Ayukta (for short, 'Lok Ayukta') in Complaint No. 1523/2015 recommending the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, to refund an amount of Rs.18,332/-, being the Building Tax collected, to the 2nd respondent-complainant along with interest at 6% p.a for the period from 05.02.2015 to the date of refund of the amount.

2. The petitioners contend that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the orders passed by the authorities under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “Building Tax Act”).

3. The short facts leading to Ext. P9 order are as follows:

The complainant's building bearing No. UGP X/277/C of Ulickal Grama Panchayat, which was being used for running a Wooden Furniture Manufacturing Workshop, was wrongly assessed to building tax for an amount of Rs.18,000/-by the Tahsildar, Iritty, vide Ext.P4 order dated 19.9.2014 issued under the Building Tax Act. As per Ext.P5 receipt dated 5.2.2015, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.18,332/-under pressure from the Village Officer, Vayathur to avoid revenue recovery proceedings. According to the complainant, since the building was being used for running a workshop, he was entitled to exemption from paying tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Building Tax Act. Hence, the complainant filed Ext.P6 appeal under Section 11 of the Building Tax Act. Since no communication was received from the Appellate Authority, the complainant issued a registered notice dated 23.3.2015 to the special Village Officer and the Tahsildar, calling upon them to refund the amount illegally collected from him. When they refused to refund the amount, the complainant filed Ext. P8 complaint before the Lok Ayukta praying for recommendation to the competent authority to refund the amount of Rs.18,332/-with interest at the rate of 15.25% per annum with quarterly rest from 15.2.2015 till realisation. He also claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/-as compensation. The petitioners herein filed written statement before the Lok Ayukta resisting the complaint and later filed additional written statement producing Ext. P7 Government Order rejecting the application of the complainant for exemption under the Building Tax Act during the pendency of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the complaint before the Lok Ayukta. The Lok Ayukta, after considering the complaint, written statements and the rejoinders of the complainant, passed Ext. P9 order and the relevant portion thereof reads as follows:

“8. In the above circumstances, we are satisfied that the complainant, who was running a furniture workshop in the building in question, was entitled to exemption from payment of building tax as provided in Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. We find that the Assessing Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Government proceeded on the wrong assumption that the complainant was claiming exemption on the ground that he was running a factory. He never raised such a claim. On the other hand, in Ext.P7 appeal the first ground raised was that "the Assessing Authority has omitted to note that impugned building is used principally as a furniture manufacturing workshop". In the letter Ref.No.564/16/F dated 18.1.2016 sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery to the Secretary, Revenue (Special Cell), Department he had specifically referred to the report of the Tahsildar, Iritty stating that the Star Furniture Industries (complainant's establishment) was running a furniture workshop. In the Government Order G.O.(Rt) No. 919/17/Rev. dated 4.3.2017 rejecting the complainant's claim for exemption the Government also did not state that the complainant's establishment was not a workshop. It is clear that the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Government did not apply their mind properly and misunderst