IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 8613 of 2007(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LITTLE FLOWER CONVENT, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MOTHER SUPERIOR. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 8613 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the concerned building belonging to the petitioner which is admittedly a 'Hostel' is actually entitled for exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. The sustainability of Ext.P5 order passed by the Government and impugned herein has been asserted by the respondents stating that the building concerned can never be considered as 'principally used' for any educational purpose, particularly since it is used for the residential purpose of employees of various offices of Vaikom Taluk and students of local educational institutions (Paragraph 7 ad 9 of the counter affidavit). The specific averments as to the factual position in this regard have not been chosen to be rebutted from the part of the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision WPC NO.8613/2009 2 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Josegiri Hospital Vs. Government of Kerala 2008 (3) KLT 627 holding that, 'Hostel' where students and teachers are accommodated, is not liable to be exempted as not principally being used for educational purpose, so as to come within the purview of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. This being the position, nothing further remains to be considered in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc