IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36739 of 2004(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- V.J.M. RUBBERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOHN, S/O. VARKEY, POTTACKAL HOUSE, MEENKUNNAM KARA P.O., ARAKUZHA VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL SRI.VARGHESE PARAMBIL SRI.ALBERT JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ARAKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYT, ARAKUZHA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.36739/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 25.9.2003 OF THE SECRETARY, ARAKKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 15.11.2003 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE, ARAKKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 15.1.2004, ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 12.2.04 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 36739 of 2004 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 6, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4. Petitioner is also challenging Rule 15 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 1996. 2. Petitioner contends that he has constructed a commercial building and that soon after he completed construction in the year 2001, he applied for remission of property tax for 2001-02. Since orders were not passed by the respondent Panchayat, petitioner submits that the tax was paid. For 2002-03 and 2003-04 also, according to him, the building remained vacant and therefore he claimed remission of property tax in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules referred to above. Petitioner contends that orders were not passed, but, by Ext.P4 demand notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, petitioner was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.6289/- towards property WP(C) 36739/04 2 tax for the aforesaid two years. It is on receipt of Ext.P4 this writ petition was filed with the prayers referred to above. 3. As far as the demand made on the petitioner for property tax is concerned, it is seen that by Ext.P1, the claim of the petitioner for remission of property tax for the year 2002-03 is seen rejected by the Panchayat. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the Panchayat has not given any reason as to why the claim of the petitioner was turned down. Although it is now stated by the Panchayat that his claim for 2002-03 was rejected for the reason that the claim should have been raised by the petitioner before 1.4.2002, that reason is also not seen mentioned in Ext.P1. 4. In so far as the subsequent year viz. 2003-04 is concerned also, the Panchayat now submits that the petitioner was informed that on his paying half of the property tax, he will be eligible for remission of the remaining half. According to the Panchayat, petitioner did WP(C) 36739/04 3 not pay the half amount due and therefore he was not given remission. 5. Though the petitioner has not produced any communication in so far as 2003-04 is concerned, in so far as 2002-03 is concerned, Ext.P1 is the order. Ext.P1 does not give any reason for rejecting his claim. Even the contention now raised by the Panchayat that the claim raised by the petitioner was belated is also not seen stated in Ext.P7. Since the reasons in support of its decision are not stated by the Panchayat in Ext.P1 and as the reasons now urged by the learned counsel are absent in the order, I cannot uphold Ext.P1 accepting the reason stated in the affidavit. Therefore Ext.P1 cannot be sustained for the reason that it does not contain any reason for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner. 6. In so far as 2003-04 is concerned, the Panchayat is accepting the eligibility of the petitioner for remission of 50% of the tax and the only condition that is insisted by the WP(C) 36739/04 4 Panchayat is that the petitioner should remit the balance 50%, which is perfectly in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules referred to above. 7. Therefore Ext.P1 will stand quashed and the Panchayat is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for remission for the year 2002-03 on the petitioner remitting 50% of the property tax for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. It is directed that on such re- examination if it is found that the petitioner is eligible for remission for the year 2002-03, the petitioner will not be saddled with liability to pay any penal interest on the tax due for 2002-03 and 2003-04 considering the fact that the dispute was pending consideration of this court. 8. Coming to the challenge raised by the petitioner against Rule 15 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 1996 is concerned, I must confess my inability to accept the said plea. The plea of discrimination is raised on the basis that under the said WP(C) 36739/04 5 rule a landlord's eligibility for remission is only 50% while under sec.239 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, a landlord is entitled to complete remission in similar circumstances. It is settled law that the validity of a statutory provision cannot be judged in the light of statutory provision occurring in a different statute. That apart, discrimination can only be within a class of citizens. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he resides in the area of the respondent Panchayat and his rights will have to be ascertained with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. He cannot complain of discrimination comparing his case with the corresponding provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act which governs a different class of citizens. Since the citizens governed by these two different enactments form different classes, there cannot be any comparison and consequently there cannot be any discrimination also. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the plea raised by the petitioner impugning the validity of WP(C) 36739/04 6 Rule 15 of the Rules. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the petitioner remitting 50% of the property tax due for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04, the Panchayat shall reconsider his claim for remission in so far as 2002-03 is concerned. As directed above, in case if the claim is accepted, the petitioner will be permitted to remit the property tax, giving benefit of Rule 15 of the Rules for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-