THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.6237 OF 2008 ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.S am Koshy)

Heard Mr. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Rajeev Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a writ petition that has been filed assailing the two demand Notices dated 08.02.2008 and 07.03.2008 issued by the Municipal Council, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, whereby, the property tax has been demanded from the petitioners between

1995-1996 till 2007-08.

3. Against the said demand notices, the petitioners upon filing of the present writ petition had also obtained an interim protection which again still in operation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the original writ petition was filed by the petitioners, they had primarily approached the Court and had obtained an interim order under the unamended Act as it stood in the year 1988, wherein, all the buildings owned by the registered educational institutions were exempted from payment of property tax. However, the said provision stood modified by way of an amendment that was brought in the year 1994, wherein, in order to get an exemption from payment of property tax, the educational institutions would have to show that they are registered and charitable institutions. The enquiry, so far as whether the petitioners’ institutions are charitable institutes or not does not seem to have been undertaken either at the behest of the petitioners or at the level of the Department.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the Full Bench decision of this High Court in W.P.No.4214 of 2006 and batch, decided on 28.12.2006, wherein, after hearing of the counsel appearing for the parties, the matters stood remanded to the concerned authorities for taking a call on the aspect whether the educational institutions would fall within the purview of the charitable institutes or not. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the said order passed by the Full Bench of this High Court in the said batch of writ petitions is reproduced hereinunder:

“Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petitions as well with an observation that before levying of the tax on the petitioners’ institutions, the authorities concerned should address to the question as to whether the institutions are charitable institutions or not and for such purpose the petitioners are at liberty to make representations to the concerned authorities within one month and after considering such representations, the authorities may pass appropriate orders since at no point of time the authorities have considered whether the petitioners’ institutions are charitable institutions or not. Therefore, we are passing such orders to enable the authorities to pass fresh orders after considering the submissions of the petitioners. We are also quashing the impugned notices. The respondents shall be at liberty to raise fresh claims, if any, after hearing the petitioners and deciding their claim that they are charitable institutions”.

6. Given the said factual matrix of the case and also considering the fact that firstly, the matter is pending before this Court for last 17 years and there is also an interim order in operation in favour of the petitioners. Secondly, the respondents do not seem to have reached to the conclusion whether the petitioners’ institutions falls under charitable institutes so as to entail them the benefit of exemption of payment of property tax, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition to the aforesaid extent can be disposed of at this juncture holding that the impugned notices dated 08.02.2008 and 07.03.2008 issued by the respondents shall as of now be kept in abeyance i.e., to say that the respondents shall not try to enfor