Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sr. Superior vs the Secretary

Sr. Superior vs The Secretary

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 05, 2024
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1299548

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(C)/15616/2014

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sr. Superior

Respondent

The Secretary

Excerpt

.....the tax as per the provisions of section 235(d) of the kerala municipality act.3. on the other hand, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of municipal corporation contended that petitioner failed to place on record any material but do not deny the fact that the matter with regard to recognition is pending before the supreme court. no counter statement has been also filed to belie the averments qua non-grant of opportunity before raising demand vide ext.p1 and subsequent request.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.5. section 235(d) of the kerala municipality act reads as under:“235(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.”6. it is evident that institutions which are runningeducation with certain permissions and grants would not be exigible to the tax as demanded by the municipal corporation. even otherwise, no material has been placed on record for raising the demand ext.p1 or granting of any opportunity of hearing. had it been so, all the contentions raised in the writpetition would have been urged and now even with a subsequent event regarding the pendency of the matter before the supreme court. thus, i am of the view that this is a fit case where matter requires to be revisited at the level of assessing officer keeping all the parameters by sending notice to the petitioner by seeking response. it shall also consider pendency of the matter before the supreme court regarding recognition.thus, writ petition is allowed by quashing exts.p1 and p2. i cannot remain unaware of the fact that this court granted interim order dated 20.06.2014 subject to deposit of rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) and the same has been deposited. the balance demand shall remain stayed till compliance of the directions aforementioned, in accordance with law.sd/- amit rawal judge.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946 PETITIONER: SR. SUPERIOR CHRIST KING CONVENT L.P.SCHOOL, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA.P.O., COCHIN-682019. BY ADVS. SHERRY J. THOMAS JOEMON ANTONY(K/000484/2017) ANTONY NILTON REMELO(K/465/2019) LIGISH XAVIER(K/2172/2019) P.J.UNNIKRISHNAN(K/187/2003) THAMANA BAI(K/57/2012) RENISH RAVEENDRAN(K/151/2011) FARHANA K.H.(K/002261/2022) GOKUL DEVIS(K/1607/2020) RESPONDENTS: 1 THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3 THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, P.B.NO.1016, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682011. BY ADVS. D.G.VIPIN SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. SR. GP - T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is running a school known as Christ King

Convent, a religious minority institution under the Congregation of Teresian Carmelites (CTC) with headquarters at Edappally. In the year 2005, Municipal Corporation initiated the process of widening of Subhash Chandra Bose Road and for that purpose, released 22 cents of property free of cost. Vide Ext.P1 petitioner was served with letter dated 30.11.2023 calling upon to remit an amount of Rs.2,66,649/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Six Hundred forty nine only) as building tax for the school building. In fact, before that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given or explanation was sought. Subsequently, vide notice dated 21.03.2014 a demand of Rs.4,27,878/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty seven thousand eight hundred seventy eight only) for the period 2008-2014 was sought to be recovered.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submitted that the Christ King Convent School is basically an aided school in Malayalam medium. It has various text books which are prepared on the Kerala Syllabus as evident from declaration dated 22.10.2013 Ext.P3 and school facilities,

Ext.P4. An application was submitted to the Government for recognition of new school in Form III under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Ext.P6 which has been rejected and the matter is now pending consideration before the Supreme Court. However, the Municipal Corporation continued to raise the demand for payment of the tax which has not been paid for two reasons; non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and pendency of the matter with regard to the recognition. In other words, in case petitioner succeeds in the Supreme Court regarding the recognition of minority institution, would be exempted to pay the tax as per the provisions of Section 235(d) of the Kerala Municipality Act.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Municipal Corporation contended that petitioner failed to place on record any material but do not deny the fact that the matter with regard to recognition is pending before the Supreme Court. No counter statement has been also filed to belie the averments qua non-grant of opportunity before raising demand vide Ext.P1 and subsequent request.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

5. Section 235(d) of the Kerala Municipality Act reads as under:

“235(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.”

6. It is evident that institutions which are running

education with certain permissions and grants would not be exigible to the tax as demanded by the Municipal Corporation. Even otherwise, no material has been placed on record for raising the demand Ext.P1 or granting of any opportunity of hearing. Had it been so, all the contentions raised in the writ

petition would have been urged and now even with a subsequent event regarding the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court. Thus, I am of the view that this is a fit case where matter requires to be revisited at the level of Assessing Officer keeping all the parameters by sending notice to the petitioner by seeking response. It shall also consider pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court regarding recognition.

Thus, writ petition is allowed by quashing Exts.P1 and P2. I cannot remain unaware of the fact that this Court granted interim order dated 20.06.2014 subject to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and the same has been deposited. The balance demand shall remain stayed till compliance of the directions aforementioned, in accordance with law.

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15616/2014 PETITIONERS EXHIBIT EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF REMINDER LETTER DATED 30.11.2013. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.7310 DATED 21.03.2014. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 22.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, CTC EDUCATIONAL AGENCY. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 22.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.07.2013 SIGNED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE AGENCY. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF APPLICATION FOR RECOGNITION DATED 23.07.2013. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE HON'BLE EDUCATION MINISTER DATED 18.11.2013. EXHBIT P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10-12- EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.03.2014 SUBMITTED TO THE MAYOR. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.10.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.12.2013 SUBMITTED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER. EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.06.2014 SUBMITTED TO THE STATE MINORITY COMMISSION. EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.4028 OF 2010 DT.10.4.2013. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT DATED 12-07-2019 IN SPECIAL LEAVE APPEAL (C) NO. 27461/2023 EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 12.04.2012 ISSUED BY LOCAL SELF GOVT.

(RC) DEPARTMENT

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial