High Court of KeralaWP(C)/6702/2015closed

U.Murugadas v. The Deputy Labour Officer

2015-03-03Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2015/12TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6702 of 2015 (K) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

------------- U.MURUGADAS, S/O.K.S.UNNIKRISHNAN, K.K.N.JEWELLERY, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 506.

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN H.

RESPONDENT(S):

-------------- THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER & ASSESSMENT OFFICER, UNDER KERALA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS ACT, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R. RENJITH.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

rvs.

WP(C).No. 6702 of 2015 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

----------------------- EXHIBIT-P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 14.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT-P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.186/2005 OF SRO, KOLLENGODE.

EXHIBIT-P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2007 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD ON 18.10.2007.

EXHIBIT-P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.NO.1256/2012 DATED 19.07.2012.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

------------------------ NIL.

/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE RVS.

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 6702 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 3rd March, 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P1 assessment notice. The contention of the petitioner is that he has not constructed the entire building and has purchased a constructed building and then made some improvements to the same. In fact, the notice would indicate that the petitioner has been specifically directed to produce evidence of any cess paid by the earlier owner and has also been directed to produce any other documents. In such circumstances, the writ petition is found to be premature. The petitioner would have to answer the notice before the appropriate authority. The writ petition is closed, leaving open the contentions of the petitioner.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//