IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

THURSDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 4TH ASWINA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 27342 OF 2024 PETITIONER :

SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION, M.G. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PREMISES, VANDITHADAM, THIRUVALLAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695027, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY K.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THENGUVILLA VEEDU, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA . P. O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 026.

BY ADVS.

SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN SETHU NANDAKUMAR D.SMITHA RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PIN – 695 033.

3 THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 695 033.

BY ADVS SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION SHEEBA G (Spl. GP)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

26.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 series of demand notices for property tax issued by the 2^nd respondent Corporation under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that Ext.P2 series of demand notices cannot be sustained in law.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 points out that the challenge to the demand for the property tax has already been decided against the petitioner in Ext.P1 judgment and this Court specifically reserved the right of the respondent Corporation to issue fresh orders so that the petitioner may file statutory appeals as observed in Ext.P1 judgment. It is submitted that since the matter is already concluded by Ext.P1 judgment as above, it is not open to the petitioner to now approach this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader also.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondent No.1, I am of the view that in the light of the categoric findings in Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner can only prefer an appeal against Ext.P2 series of demand notices, and it cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the validity of Ext.P2 series of demand notices. In Ext.P1 judgment, this Court held as follows:

“While with the above declaration, the challenge to the assessment orders, demand notices and revenue recovery notices would also have to be dismissed, I note that there could be cases where assessees want to prefer statutory appeals against the quantification of their tax liability. I therefore quash the assessment orders, demand notices and revenue recovery notices impugned in these writ petitions only for the limited purpose of enabling the respondent Panchayats/ Municipalities to issue fresh assessment orders and demand notices to the petitioners showing the basis of computation of tax and interest therein. On receiving fresh assessment order and demand notices, the petitioners may, if aggrieved by the computation aspects of the tax, approach the Appellate authorities under the Statute for a redressal of their grievances. Otherwise, the tax and interest shall be paid to the respective Panchayats/Muncipalities within a month of service of the demand notices on them”.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that substantial amounts have been remitted by the petitioner towards the property tax demands, and the same is also not reflected in the demand notices now issued. It is also submitted that fresh notice has