JAIN SWETAMBER MOORTHI PUJAK SAMAJ REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI RAVILAL SHAH S/O. LAVJIBHAI PAREKH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY HUD AND THE COMMISSIONER OF BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 04.04.2003. By the said order, the first respondent has set aside the resolution passed by the standing committee as at Annexure -A to the petition. The matter has been remitted to the Commissioner to re examine the issue in the light of the legal position on the subject.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that they are institutions engaged in charitable work and as such the levy of the property tax in respect of their property bearing No. 11, 3rd cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore - 09 is not sustainable. In this regard they contend that exemption is available in respect of such property which is utilised for the charitable purpose as contemplated under Section 110(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act ('Act' for short), In this regard at the first instance the contention raised by the petitioner was not considered favourably by the Commissioner in exercise of his power. The petitioners were before the standing committee in appeal against the said decision. The standing committee by its resolution dated 22.09.1999 has resolved that the petitioner herein is not liable to pay tax in respect of the property in question. The second respondent corporation has thereafter referred the issue to the first respondent as contemplated under Section 72 of the Act. Pursuant thereto the first respondent has initially passed an order holding that the standing committee was not justified. The petitioner herein was before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3502 -06/2002. This Court on noticing that the petitioner herein had not been granted sufficient opportunity before the first respondent has set aside the order and remitted, the matter to the first respondent for re -consideration. Pursuant to such remand the first respondent has reconsidered the matter. After such re -consideration, the first respondent was of the opinion that in view of the law on the subject matter, it requires reconsideration by the Commissioner to look into the contentions of the petitioner herein claiming exemption under Section 110(b) of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent however would seek to justify the order impugned in this writ petition. It is contended that under Section 72 of the Act reference was made to the first respondent and therefore the same is competent in law. In any event at the first instance the petitioners were before this Court, assailing the order passed by the first respondent, this Court had set aside the order and remitted the matter to the first respondent to provide opportunity and decide the matter, which means jurisdiction is a foregone conclusion. Therefore at this juncture the competence of the first respondent in any event cannot be questioned. It is further pointed out that even by the impugned order, the first respondent has remitted the matter to the Commissioner to reconsider by providing an opportunity to the parties and redo the matter afresh. Learned Counsel pointed out that the document produced as Annexure - R3 along with the objection statement would indicate that the petitioner in fact has availed the remedy by appearing before the commissioner at the first instance after remand and only thereafter the petitioner has filed this writ petition as an after thought. Hence, it is contended, the writ petition is without merit.