ORDER : [S. Manikumar, J.] 1. Before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, respondent No.2 preferred a complaint stating that his building bearing No.UGPX/277/C of Ulickal Grama Panchayat, which was being used for running a wooden furniture manufacturing workshop, was wrongly assessed to building tax by the Tahsildar, Iritty vide assessment order issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 and he has remitted a sum of Rs.18,332/- under pressure from the Village Officer, Vayathur. 2. Placing reliance on section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, he has sought for exemption from payment of tax. However, all the authorities including the Government as per G.O.(Rt)No.919/17/Rev. dated 04.03.2017 have rejected the request for exemption. Being aggrieved, he has approached the Lok Ayukta. 3. After referring to the statutory provisions, section 3(1) (b) of the Act and the materials placed, Lok Ayukta, vide order in Complaint No.1523/2015 dated 17.06.2022, came to the conclusion that the complainant was running only a furniture unit/workshop in the building in question and thus entitled to exemption. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order in Complaint No.1523/2015 are extracted : “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. 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 misunderstood the claim of the complainant and proceeded to take a wrong decision to deny the benefit to the complainant. We find that the decisions/actions taken by them were arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and unjust. It amounted to maladministration and as a consequence of such maladministration, the complainant sustained injustice and undue hardship. We hold that the grievance of the complainant is genuine and the complainant is entitled to refund of the illegally recovered amount of Rs.18,332/- with interest at 6% per annum for the period from 5.2.2015 (date of recovery of the amount) to the date of refund of the amount. 9. Through this Report under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 we recommend to the Competent Authority viz., Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Kerala that the injustice and hardship sustained by the complainant shall be remedied by ensuring that the respondents refund to the complainant the illegally recovered amount of Rs.18,332/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. for the period from 5.2.2015 to the date of refund of the amount.” 4. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed on various grounds including the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to entertain a complaint in respect of the adjudicatory procedure and not administrative procedure as referred to in section 2(k) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, which speaks about maladministration. 5. ‘Maladministration’ as defined under section 2(k) of the Act 1999 is reproduced: “(k) “maladministration” means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,- (i) such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or (ii) there has been willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay.” 6. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of this court in State of Kerala v. Bernard reported in 2002 (3) KLT 254 and Sunayana v. Tahsildar reported in 2013 (2) KLT SN 3. 7. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of this court in State of Kerala v. Bernard reported in 2002 (3) KLT 254 and Sunayana v. Tahsildar reported in 2013 (2) KLT SN 3. 7. Having gone through the statutory provisions, we are of the prima facie view that when there is adjudication and order is passed, it would not attract the definition ‘maladministration’ so as to empower the Lok Ayukta to entertain a complaint. 8. Equally, we are of the view that adjudicatory orders passed under taxing statutes could be challenged only by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Tax due is for the year 2015 and the complaint has been disposed of, after seven years. In such a view of the matter, we are inclined to admit the writ petition. 9. Admit. Issue notice to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 by special messenger, returnable in two weeks. 10. There shall be an interim stay of the impugned order. 11. In the meanwhile, Mr. Mohammed Rafiq, learned Special Government Pleader, is also directed to instruct the authorities to ascertain as to whether respondent No.2 is running a furniture manufacturing unit/workshop or a factory. Post on 05.01.2023.