IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28846 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SANTHOSH MANI, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALA. 2. AMMALUKUTTY MANI, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALA. BY ADVS. MR.R.PARTHASARATHY, MR.C.JAYACHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA. 2. THE PALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR.V.M.KURIAN, S.C, R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.28846 of 2009-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners seek relief in relation to proceedings imposing property tax and recovery thereof. They plead that they are entitled to exemption from payment of property tax for the buildings in question by virtue of the provisions in clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. On a request by the Municipality as discernible from Ext.P7, the Government intervened in the matter and issued Ext.P11, however without answering the fundamental issue in which resolution by the Government was sought for by the Municipality. I say this because, though the plea of the petitioners is in relation to exemption under Section 235(1)(d), the Government issued Ext.P11 stating only that the recovery is to be limited WPC28846/09 -: 2 :- for three years in terms of Section 539 and action taken on the basis of that provision shall be reported. The Government, obviously, read Section 539 as curtailing recovery to confine only to three previous years. The said provision also enjoins saddling the concerned officers with the liability for non-recovery. Noting that this provision, ultimately, works against the interest of the LSGIs and the State exchequer and there is gross room for corruption and favouritism, this Court had wanted the Government to speak on that issue in a different matter which is pending before this Court. Be that as it may, the Government not having addressed the question of exemption, the direction to confine the recovery to be for three years under Section 539 also does not stand, as of now. Therefore, Ext.P11 is quashed and the Government would consider the request of the Municipality to answer its reference. It is however clarified that this Court does not grant its seal of approval to such procedure. Therefore, the question of WPC28846/09 -: 3 :- maintainability of such a proceeding is left open. It is further clarified that the Government shall issue an order within a period of two months. Until that, there will be no recovery against the petitioners in terms of the impugned demand. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/051109