K. Harilal, J.

The question that emerges for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the grant of exemption from property tax under Section 207 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, to the buildings, used for educational purpose or allied purpose and its hostel buildings owned by the Government, aided or functioning with the financial assistance of the Government alone, in exclusion of similar buildings and hostels owned by other private management of self-financing Educational Institutions, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner/Engineering College is a self-financing college, affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, recognised and controlled by the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-exploitative fee and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in professional Education) Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act'). It is needless to say, the admission, fixation of fees and allied matters are controlled by the authorities under the said Act. But solely on the reason that the buildings and hostels are not owned by the Government or not aided or functioning with the financial assistance of the Government, it cannot be discriminated, in violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, by imposing property tax, unlike the buildings and hostels owned or financed by the Government which stand exempted under Section 207 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the learned counsel argued.

3. Before embarking an enquiry on the said question, the scope and extent of the constitutional requirements under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, for declaring a law or provision discriminatory and unconstitutional, deserves consideration. "Equality before law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India" is a cardinal principle enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 'Equality before law' only means that 'amongst equals' the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated alike. It can be said that the principle of equal treatment requires that individuals be treated similarly to the extent that they are same and be treated differently to the extent that they are different. In T. Devadasan v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 179], the Supreme Court has interpreted the scope and extent of Article 14 in this way. "The principle of equality before law does not require absolute equality or an equality amongst unequals. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination and before considering inequality treatment, the object of legislation has to be considered. The principle of reasonable classification is permissible to the limited extent on grounds such as comity of nations, public interest etc." According to 'Constitution of Laws of India' by H.M. Servai 4th Edition, the doctrine of equal protection of laws mean, the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated and a law based on permissible classification fulfils the guarantee of equal protection of laws and is valid, but a law based on impermissible classification violates guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is void. In Mohammed Shejat Ali v. State of A.P. (AIR 1974 SC 1631), the Supreme Court held as follows :

"The fundamental guarantee is of equal protection and the doctrine of classification is a subsidiary rule evolved by Courts to give practical content to that guarantee by accommodating it with the practical needs of the society and it should not be allowed to submerge and drawn the precision guarantee of equality".

4. In Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah v. Union of India (AIR 1969 SC 1094) the Supreme Court held as follows :

"Equal protection clause does not enjoin equal protection of the laws as abstract propositions. Protection of equality does not predicate a mathematically precise or logically comple