IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No.36310 of 2000(V) ----------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31. BY ADV. SMT. PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI. K.P. KYLASANATHA PILLAY SRI. P. SREEKUMAR SRI. B. PRABATH KUMAR SMT. SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, P.O. BOX No. 1016, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011. ADV. SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN,SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No.36310/2000 Order on C.M.P.No.61810/2000 in OP.No.36310/2000 Dismissed. 26.11.2008 Sd/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE SPECIAL NOTICE DATED 12.12.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P1(A) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 11.12.2000. EXT. P1(B) : COPY OF THE SPECIAL NOTICE DT. 11.12.2000. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt) No.-2180/2000 DT. 2.6.2000. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER No.CER-3/(3) 12855/98 DT. 14.6.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DT. 18.7.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER No.35095/B4/2000/LSGD DT. 2.8.2000. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM No.KBC/BLDGS/528/98 DT. 29.4.2998. EXT. P7 : COPY OF the NOTICE DT. 21.9.1997 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P8 : COPY OF THE SPECIAL NOTICES DT. 7.7.97. EXT. P9 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 3.12.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P10 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 27.1.1998. EXT. P11 : COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TAX APPEAL STANDING COMMITTEE. EXT. P12 : COPY OF THE ORDER No.QRP No.3(C) 23362/97-98 DT. 6.2.98. OP.No.36310/2000 EXT. P13 : COPY OF the LETTER No.CEF.3(c) 1838/98 DT. 18.4.1998. EXT. P14 : COPY OF THE ORDER No.1 TAC DT. 25.9.1999. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp KURIAN JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------- O.P.No.36310 OF 2000 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The issue pertains to the claim made by the petitioner for exemption from payment of property tax under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Section 235 of the Act dealing with exemption does not take in building of the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader submits that even the High Court pays property tax to the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also collecting rent from the Bank functioning in the building. 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Government has not considered the case of the petitioner for exemption under Section 281(2) of the Act. It is seen that the above contention of the petitioner was dealt with in Exhibit P2 order. However, apparently, the request has been rejected on the ground of Section 281(2) does not apply to the petitioner. I am afraid that stand cannot be appreciated. Section 281(2) of the Act reads as follows: O.P.No.36310/00 2 Section 281(2): “The Government, or with the sanction of the Government the Municipality may exempt any person or class of persons wholly or in part from the payment of any tax. But nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the exemption of any person solely on the ground that he is a Councillor”. 3. It is fairly clear that it cannot be said that the provision for exemption does not apply to the petitioner. Section 281(2) gives wide power to the Government on its own or with the recommendation of the Municipality to exempt any person or class of persons from payment of any tax. Since the expression is “any tax”, the claim for exemption has to be considered on merits. What has been done now by the Government is that the request has been rejected on the ground that provision will not apply to the case of petitioner. Even an attempt for review by the petitioner was turned down without assigning any reason, as can be seen from Exhibit P5. In the above circumstances, I quash Exhibit P5 with a direction to the Government to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made in this judgment, with notice to the O.P.No.36310/00 3 petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This original petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. smp O.P.No.36310/00 4 KURIAN JOSEPH, J. O.P.No.36310 OF 2000 J U D G M E N T 26.11.2008