DREAM WORLD WATER PARK Vs. TAHSILDAR TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The party before us being one and the same in both the appeal and the writ petition, these matters are clubbed together and disposed of by this judgment. Even otherwise, the issue involved is common to both the matters. The writ petitioner-appellant is-before us. So far as appeal is concerned, it is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4149 of 2013 declining to quash Ext. P16, the rejection of claim of the appellant to extend building tax exemption to the appellant. WP(C) No. 6154 of 2013 is filed challenging Ext. P18 dated 13/02/2013, orders passed by the original authority, i.e., the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur assessing the building tax.

(2.) It is necessary to narrate certain facts in order to understand the real issue of controversy involved in the above matters:

(3.) The appellant-writ petitioner filed an application as per Ext. P11 for exemption addressing the same to the Government. The first respondent refused to entertain Ext. P11, therefore, said application was sent by registered post. Meanwhile, the RDO passed another order Ext. P12. Challenging both Ext. P10 directing the appellant to forward a copy of the application to the Tahsildar and also refusing to receive Ext. P11, WP(C) No. 21748/2010 came to be filed by the appellant. As a matter of fact, Ext. P10 was the rejection of the appeal and Ext. P12 was only vacating earlier stay granted by the RDO. WP(C) No. 21748 of 2010 came to be disposed of by judgment dated 16/09/2010 and the relevant paragraphs are 4 and 5 which reads as under: