The appeal against the Municipality's property tax notification was not maintainable as the respondent was an unregistered association without standing under the applicable rules.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

Local Self-Government Department of the State Government issued G.O.No.2414/2011/LSGD on 20.10.2011 directing all Local Self-Government Institutions to fix the rate of property tax after classifying the areas into three zones, namely, primary, secondary and tertiary. Government further directed the Municipalities to follow the principles enumerated in the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011.

2. The petitioner Municipality, for implementing the Government Order, entrusted a team of officers to conduct a comprehensive analysis and obtained a report. The Municipal Council, after a detailed discussion on the report submitted, approved the tentative zonal classification and rate of property tax by resolution dated 29.10.2011. Municipality thereafter published Ext.P3 notification. It was published in two dailies having circulation in the local area. In response to the notification, 67 complaints were received with regard to the zonal classification and fixation of basic tax. Municipality hosted several meetings and discussions to consider the complaints. Later, the Municipality re-fixed zonal classifications and also the basic tax for properties, taking into account the objections and all other relevant aspects. A notification dated 30.3.2012 was issued by the Municipality, re-fixing the zonal areas and basic property tax. The entire Municipal area was classified into three zones, namely, primary, secondary and tertiary in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011. Boundaries of each zones were stated in the notification.

3. First respondent approached the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions in Appeal No.323 of 2012, challenging the notification dated 30.3.2012. Convener of the 1^st respondent was the 2^nd appellant and the Convener in his personal capacity was the 3^rd appellant. The principal contention raised before the Tribunal was that the notification was improper and illegal for the alleged reason that the classifications of various zones were not in accordance with the principles followed in the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011. It was contended that boundaries of each zones were not clearly demarcated and specified. Further, it was contended that when the boundaries are not properly fixed and notified, the same would give rise to confusion and uncertainty. The petitioner Municipality appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement. Municipality contended that the notification is perfectly in tune with the principles and provisions of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011. It was also pointed out by the Municipality that it received about 67 complaints and all complaints were properly examined, placed before the Council and the Finance Committee to study the matter in the light of the complaints and only after considering the complaints and suggestions, the final decision was taken. Several changes were made in the light of the complaints and also as a result of re-examination of the matter by the Finance Committee and the Council. Municipality therefore, submitted before the Tribunal that there was no merit in the appeal.

4. The Tribunal examined the notifications issued by the Municipality and accepted the contention of the appellants that the boundaries of different zones were not properly fixed. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned notification was illegal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the notification and entire proceedings leading to the issuance of the notification. The Secretary and the Municipal Council were directed to reconsider the entire aspects and to proceed properly for assessing the tax in compliance with the provisions of Kerala Munici