Point of Law: Even Though a faint allegation is made by the petitioner that the quantification in the demand is not proper, it is not supported by any cogent and material evidence, and therefore the Panchayat is entitled to get the benefit of the presumption available under Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, being an official act.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner is a Government of India undertaking, having factories within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent -Vadavucode Puthencruz Grama Panchayat. Petitioner was issued with demand notices claiming licence fees by the Grama Panchayat during the year 1997 – 1998 under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994( hereinafter called Act 1994), and attendant Rules 1996. According to the petitioner, petitioner has filed O.P.No.19220 of 2007, challenging the decision of the first respondent Grama Panchayat to levy license fees under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of License to Dangerous and Offensive Trade & Factories) Rules, 1996, hereinafter called, “Rules, 1996”, against the financial year 1997-1998, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P1 common judgment dated 18.8.2007. Thereafter, the first respondent demanded for payment of license fee in arrears, which according to the petitioner, is a demand barred by Section 243 of the Act 1994. Thereupon, petitioner filed Ext.P11 appeal before the Committee of the first respondent Panchayat challenging the demand and the appeal was rejected by Ext.P12. Exhibit P12 was challenged before the Standing Committee for Finance of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat and the said appeal was also rejected by Ext.P13.

2. Being aggrieved, R.P.No.129 of 2009 was filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the appeal filed before the Standing Committee was not maintainable and dismissed the revision on that basis without going into the merits of the matter. The order dated 25.2.2010 in R.P.No.129 of 2009 is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

3. It is further submitted by the petitioner that vide Exhibit P5 notification dated 28.4.2006, the entire area under the occupation of the petitioner has been declared as an industrial area by the Government of Kerala. According to the petitioner, by virtue of this notification, the 1st respondent has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to demand the payment of licence fee as the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act does not apply to industrial areas of the State by virtue of Section 1(2) of the Act.

4. In the aforesaid background, the following arguments are advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; various demand notices issued by the 1st respondent is unwarranted, opposed to law, unsustainable and therefore, liable to be set aside; that the demand notices cover periods in respect of which no demand can be made at this point of time in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder; that in view of Ext P.5 Notification, the 1st respondent has absolutely no authority to demand any license fee from the petitioner; that the calculation of D & O license fee payable shown in the demand notice is incorrect; the demand of license fee in respect of machinery in excess of 200 HP is calculated as per schedule III of the D&O License Rules. The proviso to rule 18 of the Rules, 1996 indicates that fees leviable in respect of machinery given by electricity and covered by schedule 3 shall not exceed the fees leviable, where the machinery is not driven by Electricity, which is provided in Schedule IV. Therefore, the maximum fee in respect of the horse power in excess of 200 HP, is only the fees specified in Schedule IV of the said rules and not those specified in Schedule III. Even if it is assumed that the D&O licence fee is payable, such payments can only be in respect of amounts, which are authorized by the rules and not the amounts, now demanded, which is contrary to rules.

5. According to the petitioner, the Government of Kerala, Industries Department – the 2nd respondent, has notified 442 hectares of land owned and occupied by the petitioner as an 'Industrial Area'. The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is not applicable to industrial areas by virtue of section 1(2) of the Act, 1994. The petitioner is, t