IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22737 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.BUILDERS, A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.K.MOHANDAS, S/O. K.K.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 53, BUSINESS, HAVING ITS REGD.OFFICE AT PERAVOOR, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM, PERAVOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KANNUR, KANNUR P.O., KANNUR TALUK. 2. THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO, ICICI KINFRA LIMITED, TC 11/984(1), M-26, DEVASWAM LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P(C) No. 22737 OF 2009 J ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T There is a contract between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It provides for the petitioner building, operating and transferring(BOT) a bus stand cum shopping complex as conceived by the Municipality and to be owned by it on such transfer. Though a building belonging to a Municipality is exempted from payment of property tax by virtue of the exemption contained in section 235(g) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994., the Municipality demanded and insisted on payment of tax by the petitioner. May be that the building would belong to the Municipality only on a transfer of all rights thereon by the operation of the BOT agreement. However, as of now, the petitioner has paid the amount demanded as property tax. The liability to pay such tax is an issue for decision between the petitioner and the 1st respondent in as much as the issue for resolution would be as to whether it is the petitioner or the 1st respondent which has to pay the amount reckonable as the property tax paid by the petitioner. WPC.22737/09 : 2 : Resolution of disputes in terms of all matters touching the contract is governed by a provision for arbitration, subject to a conciliation, prescribed as the first time. To invoke that process, the petitioner, being a party to the agreement, cannot seek a direction in the form of issuance of a writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has adequate remedy within the frame work of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Recording the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek relief in terms of that statute, if necessary. All other issues are left open. It is also clarified that any reference to facts, made herein is prima facie and only for the purpose of this case and does not in any manner bind the parties before any other authority. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge