IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1333 of 2011 & CROSS OBJECTION --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6085/2007 Dated 20/07/2011 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE W.P(C) --------------------------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REP.BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,.REVENUE(SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TAHSILDAR,THALASSERY TALUK,THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ. RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN W.P(C) /CROSS OBJECTOR: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE ADMINISTRATOR,CHRISTU RAJ HOSPITAL, THOKKILANGADI,NIRMALAGIRI.P.O,THALASSERY TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT ADMINISTRATOR MARY JAMES-670701. BY ADV. SRI. S. VIJAYAN NAIR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2011, ALONG WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 75 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: “C.R.” C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 1333/ 2011 & CROSS OBJECTION 75/ 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring eligibility for building tax exemption in respect of a hospital building wherein patients are charged for the medical relief granted. A Full Bench of this Court has considered the issue in the decision reported in Unity Hospital (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2011) (1) KHC 125 (FB) wherein the issue is decided as follows: “Under clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the Act, buildings that qualify for exemption are buildings used for religious, charitable or educational purposes or as factories or workshops. Each and every purpose covered by clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the Act are independent and distinct, though some organizations may be involved in different activities all falling under clause (b). The concept of “free service” is provided only in the explanation to the section, which defines charitable purpose which includes relief of the poor and free medical relief. Charity as a concept essentially is service provided to the poor, which excludes commercial motives or profit. What is specifically provided in the explanation is that in order to qualify medical relief as a charitable purpose, medical service W.A. 1333/2011 2 should be rendered to patients free of cost. This only means that hospital buildings will get exemption under the head “charity”, only if medical service is rendered free in such hospital building.” Even though a Division Bench of this Court, without noticing the above Full Bench decision, in Mercy (Sr.) (Dr.) v. Secretary to Government of Kerala and another [2011 (1) KHC 769 (DB)] allowed exemption, following which the learned Single Judge allowed the respondent's case, when the matter again came up before the Division Bench in W.A. 372/2011, the matter was again reconsidered and following the Full Bench decision in Unity Hospital's case, this Court held that exemption is to be considered with reference to the nature and use of the building and not with reference to the object of the organization owning the building. Since rendering of free medical relief is mandatory for granting building tax exemption for the hospital, the respondent is not entitled to exemption as medical relief is not granted to the patients free of costs. Following the Full Bench judgment above referred and the later judgment in W.A. 372 of 2011 dated 18.8.2011, the Division Bench judgment followed by the learned Single Judge no longer is good law and therefore, we allow the appeal reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and by restoring the demand of tax in respect of the hospital building where medical relief is W.A. 1333/2011 3 rendered on chargeable basis. The Cross objection is filed by the respondent claiming exemption for building used as quarters by medical officers attached to the hospital. The learned Single Judge declined exemption for the reason that there is no provision for granting exemption for residential buildings. The contention of the respondent's counsel is that residential quarters is part of the hospital complex and therefore, it is entitled to exemption. Since we have already reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge granting exemption for hospital building itself on the ground that medical relief is granted not freely, but on chargeable basis, residential quarters are also not entitled for exemption. Therefore, there is no merit in the cross objection. It is accordingly dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-