JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The appeal is preferred by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.

1407 of 2021 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 21.01.2021, whereby the following directions were issued:

“3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that inasmuch as the issue regarding liability of the petitioner to property tax for the period prior to the date of issuance of the Occupancy Certificate is currently decided in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of the Single Judge referred above, although, the said judgment is stated to be in appeal before the Division Bench, the dispute regarding liability to property tax cannot, now be cited by the respondent Corporation as a reason for not acting on the application for Ownership Certificate and issuing the same to the petitioner, if the facts necessary for the same are established before the Corporation.

Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Corporation to accept the property tax as offered by the petitioner in Ext.P11 communication and issue to it an Ownership Certificate pursuant to Ext.P10 application, if the petitioner is found to satisfy the requirements therefor, without insisting on payment of the differential property tax demanded by the respondent Corporation, within an outer time limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the issuance of the Ownership Certificate by the respondent Corporation shall be without prejudice to its contentions as regards the liability of the petitioner to the differential property tax claimed by it. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent Corporation for further action.”

It is thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, this appeal is preferred.

2. Basic facts for the disposal of the appeal, as is discernible from the writ petition, are as follows:

The writ petitioner is said to be a non profit charitable hospital set up and managed by the Lourdes society for Health Care and Research run by priests and nuns of the Christian religious faith. In the year 2001, the writ petitioner started certain constructions of additional buildings in the premises in which a hospital is existing. However, the construction could not be completed on account of certain financial constraints and finally, the works were completed during March, 2012. Pursuant to the completion of the construction, occupancy certificate was sought for by the writ petitioner. While so, in the year 2011, a notice of assessment was issued by the Secretary of the Corporation purporting to assess the property tax on the new constructions made by the petitioner for the period 2008-2012.

Anyhow, after completing the procedural requirements, assessment was completed as per Ext. P1 order dated 07.08.2012, culminated in the filing of the writ petitions challenging the same, and that the said dispute is apparently pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court consequent to the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge in favour of the writ petitioner.

3. The basic issue raised in the writ petition in question is that the writ petitioner has applied for an ownership certificate, evident from Ext. P10 dated 01.12.2020. However, the said application was not considered. According to the writ petitioner, the attempt of the appellants to delay the issuance of the ownership certificate is causing innumerable difficulties to it. It was significantly contended in the writ petition that a dispute pertaining to property tax is pending cannot be a ground for denial of ownership certificate. It was in the said background, the writ petition was filed and consequently, the directions extracted above were issued by the learned single Judge.

4. The paramount contention advanced by the Corporation and the Secretar