IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 34910 OF 2011 PETITIONER:

ST.JOSEPH HOSPITAL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

BY ADVS.

SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.B.PREMNATH E SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RC) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039.

2 THE ANCHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT ANCHAL.P.O., KOLLAM-691306 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

BY ADVS.

SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SMT.ANITHA M.N. EKM SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN -SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2023 This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P14 order passed by the Government rejecting the request made by the petitioner for exemption from property tax under Section 207(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a hospital run by a registered charitable society under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The building of the hospital is used only for the said purpose and that free treatment is provided to several needy members of the society. It is submitted that no profit is intended or made by the society and that only the running charges and the improvements of the hospital are carried out from the income generated. It is submitted that when Ext.P8 demand was served, the petitioner had submitted objections and the amount of property tax was reduced to Rs.27,361 per half year. The petitioner thereafter filed Ext.P10 representation claiming exemption under Section 207(2) which was declined by Ext.P12. The petitioner had approached this Court filing W.P.(C).No.417/2004 which was disposed of by Ext.P13 judgment directing a reconsideration of the matter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P14 order has been passed considering the claim of the petitioner as if it is an application for exemption under Section 207(1)(c) and the claim has been rejected. Though the petitioner had specifically sought an order under Section 207(2), the said aspect was not considered by the Government. It is submitted that the specific directions contained in Ext.P13 judgment have therefore been flouted by the Government while passing Ext.P14 order.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of this Court in Fr.Jose Thenpillil v. Karukutty Grama Panchayat [2014 (3) KLT 916] to contend that the considerations for rendering an order under Section 207(1) and its various sub clauses and Section 207(2) are completely distinct and different and that the Government is free to pass an order under Section 207(2) even in a case where none of the requirement of clauses (a) to (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 207 are met. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Government at all while passing Ext.P14 order in spite of specific directions by this Court in Ext.P13 judgment.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the entire representation submitted by the petitioner proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is a charitable institution running a hospital providing treatment free of cost and that it is only in the prayer portion of Ext.P10 that Section 207(2) is mentioned. The learned Government Pleader also places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Medical Trust Hospital v. State of Kerala and others [2004 KHC 1072] to contend that, in the grant of exemption rendered under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, the word ‘principally used’ has to be considered in its proper perspective and it is only where the charity aspect is considerable that an exemption can be granted under Section

207(1)(c).