IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11995 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NOORUL ISLAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, NICE GARDEN,ARALUMMOODU,NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 123,REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN A.P.MAJEED KHAN. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REP.BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE, NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY,NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).11995/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Trust which has established a Dental College. They were issued Exts.P1 to P9 notices demanding property tax. Against the orders levying property tax, they filed Ext.P12 appeal and Ext.P13 stay petition. The appeal was disposed of by Ext.P15 order reducing the total amount of tax levied on them. Accordingly, fresh demand was made by Exts.P16 to P22. In this writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P15 and Exts.P16 to P22. Petitioner also submits that out of the total liability of Rs.8,03,396/-, they have remitted Rs.1,46,972/-, the receipt of which has been acknowledged by Ext.P24 receipt. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Educational Institutions are exempted from levy of property tax under Section 235(1)(d) of the Kerala Municipality Act (in short 'the Act') and therefore the demand is totally illegal. 2. In my view, since the petitioner has a right of revision to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions as provided W.P.(C).11995/10 2 under Section 509(8) of the Act, it is for the petitioner to pursue the revisional remedy available to him and for that reason, it is not necessary for this Court to entertain this writ petition or enter into the merits of the contentions made by the petitioner. Therefore, I dismiss the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to seek revisional remedy as provided under Section 509(8) of the Act. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs