IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 18431 of 1997(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.K.SIVAJI, PRINCIPAL, BHARATH I.T.C. (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE), THALASSERY-4, KANNUR DIST BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THALASSERY. 2. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THALASSERY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.32939/1997 IN O.P. NO.18431/1997 DISMISSED: 29.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.3.10.1987 FROM THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING TO THE PETITIONER. P1(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.31.7.90 FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR. P1(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.7.7.94 FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TRAINING. P2: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.20.3.96 FROM R2. P3: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DT.28.3.96 TO THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY R1 DT.16.3.96. P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.7.10.97 OF R1. P6: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX ISSUED BY THE TALUK OFFICE, THALASSERY DT.16.4.93. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.18431 of 1997 .................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order dated 7.10.1997 whereunder the first respondent has withdrawn exemption from property tax earlier granted to the petitioner's building under order of the Council on 16.3.1996. The reason for withdrawal of exemption from property tax for the building is introduction of new provision namely, Section 235in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. 2. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. Section 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act providing for exemption is as follows: "S.235. Exemption:- (1) The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from the property tax: ........ (d) buildings recognised by the Government or registered with the Municipality under this Act and owned and occupied by educational institutions and used only for teaching and libraries open to public. ........." The buildings granted exemption from property tax under the above clause 2 are buildings recognised by the Government or registered with Municipality under this Act and owned and occupied by educational institutions and used only for teaching and libraries open to public. There is some confusion about the scope of the section because of the provision for recognition of the building by the Government which is factually not done nor provided for in the statute. There is also no separate provision for registration of an educational building with the Municipality. However, the Section has to be interpreted with reference to the object sought to be achieved i.e. granting of exemption from property tax to educational institutions and for libraries open to public. Probably the recognition by Government contemplated under the Section can be recognition of the educational course run in the building. Therefore, a rational meaning to be assigned to the above provision is the one which provides for exemption to all buildings used as educational institutions for running any course recognised by the Government and also to buildings used as libraries which are open to public. It is clear from Exts.P1(a) and P1(b) produced by the petitioner that petitioner has permanent affiliation for certain courses granted by the National Council for Vocational Training. Similarly petitioner's institution stands recognised by Regional Directorate of Technical Education, Calicut for running certain courses. According to counsel for the first respondent, 3 these documents produced by the petitioner are not current and were not produced before the Municipality. If petitioner is running any educational course recognised by the Government, then petitioner is entitled to exemption from property tax by virtue of the provision abovereferred. The contention of counsel for the first respondent that private educational institution is not entitled to exemption from property tax is unacceptable because Section does not limit the exemption to educational institutions run by the Government. In fact, all educational institutions under the Government aided and self-financed sector are entitled to exemption. Similar view taken by this court in CALICUT INSTITUTE OF ENG. & TECHNOLOGY V. CORPORATION OF CALICUT (1990(1) KLT 340), though with reference to the provisions of 1961 Act, are applicable under the new provision also. If the petitioner has recognition for the ITC course run in the building and if the building is owned by the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to exemption. Since the section provides for exemption only for buildings owned by educational institutions, exemption cannot be granted if building is taken on lease from any other person. The petitioner should produce before first respondent title deeds of the property towards proof of ownership of the building. The petitioner is also directed to produce certificates towards proof of current affiliation and recognition 4 from the concerned authorities, whether it be N.C.V.T. or Regional Directorate of Technical Education, and if the petitioner has recognition for the courses run by it from Central or State Government authorities, there will be direction to the first respondent to grant exemption from property tax and such exemption should be granted for the whole period the building was used for the same purpose. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms