ANIL K.NARENDRAN J.

These Writ Appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt.27.11.2008 in W.P.(C)No.31338/2008. The appellants in W.A.No.500/09 are the 2nd and 3rd respondents in W.P. (C)No.31338/2008 and the appellant in W.A.No.2431/09 are the 1st and 4th respondents in that Writ Petition.

2. W.P.(C).No.31338/08 was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 Government order dt.18.9.2008 and seeking a declaration that she is not liable to pay the property tax for the building bearing No.5/277 and 228 in Cherthala Municipality. The learned Single Judge by judgment dt.27.11.2008 allowed the writ petition quashing Ext.P9 Government order and declaring that the 1st respondent herein is not liable to pay property tax in respect of the building in question and that the demand made by the appellants in W.A.No.500/09 is unsustainable. It is aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants are before us in these Writ Appeals.

3. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in both these Writ Appeals and also perused the documents on record.

4. The 1st respondent, as contended in the Writ Petition, is the Director and Principal of SB College of Engineering and Industrial Training Centre, which is an institution recognised by both State and Central Governments as an Industrial Training Centre, imparting training in various courses. Exts.P1 and P1(a) are the renewal of provisional recognition granted by the Directorate of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram, to the said institution. Ext.P2 is the permanent affiliation granted by the Directorate of Technical Education, based on the recommendation of the Affiliation Standing Committee of the National Council for Vocational Trades, New Delhi, for conducting various courses. Ext.P3 is the permission granted to the 1st respondent by the Cherthala Municipality for construction of the building for the purpose of running the educational institution.

5. The 1st respondent claimed exemption from property tax, under Section 235(1)(d) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that, the building is exclusively used as an educational institution and recognised by the State Government as well as Central Government. But the Municipality issued Ext.P4 notice demanding property tax for the said building for the year 1995-96. Prior to that, the Municipality had issued another notice demanding property tax for the year 1994-95.

6. In view of the demand made by the Municipality, the 1st respondent submitted Ext.P5 reply. But the same was rejected stating that the building is not liable to be exempted from property tax, as the same is not under the ownership of the educational institution. Pursuant to that decision, the 1st respondent was issued with Ext.P6 notice of the Municipality, demanding property tax for the entire period. On getting Ext.P6 notice, the 1st respondent approached this Court in O.P.1894/1996 and this Court granted an order of stay of Ext.P6. During the pendency of that original petition, the 1st respondent approached the Director, Municipal Administration, seeking exemption from property tax. But the said request was rejected by Ext.P7 order dt.26.3.1996 stating that, as the building is not in the name of SB College of Engineering and ITC, it is not entitled for any exemption from property tax under Section 235 (1)(d) of the Act.

7. By Ext.P8 judgment, this Court disposed of O.P.No.1814/96, setting aside Ext.P7 order passed by the Director of Municipal Administration and the Government was directed to consider the representation referred to in Ext.P7 with notice to the 1st respondent and the Municipality. It was also made clear that, till appropriate orders are passed as directed above, the interim passed by this Court shall continue. As borne out from Ext.P8 judgment, the 1st respondent contended before this Court that, her ownersh