GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BANGALORE AND ANOTHER Vs. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitions, the challenge is to the endorsement, dated 23 -3 -2011 (Annexure -A) turning down the petitioners' request for the exemption from the payment of property tax. Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Nishanth K.V. for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement is issued on the basis of a mechanical and non -speaking order of the Commissioner of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ('B.B. M.P.' for short). The B.B. M.P. authorities have considered the petitioners' case under Section 110(1)(e) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the said Act' for short); on the other hand they ought to have considered the petitioners' request under Section 110(1)(i)(a) and 110(1)(i)(b) of the said Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the hospitals are being run only as a part of the teaching institutions. Imparting the medical education and treating the patients constitute a composite activity only.

(2.) SRI Naik attacks the impugned endorsement on the ground of the violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that if the petitioners were only to be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter, they would however convince the respondents of the petitioners' entitlement to the exemption sought. In support of his submission, he read out para 6 of this Court's decision in the case of Smt, Devatha Venkatalakshmamma Rathnam Setty Charitable Trust, Bangalore v. The Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Another : 1999 (4) Kar. L.J. 545, which are as follows. -

(3.) IT could be seen from the description of the building concerned as specified in Section 110(1)(i)(a) of the Act that emphasises the dominant purpose for which the hostel is established or conducted, viz., whether it is established or conducted for profit. If we examine the facts of this particular case on the basis of the material produced before the Commissioner, it is evident that, the hostel concerned is established for the benefit of the students studying in the respondent -institution, but not established or conducted for profit. If the hostel is thus not established or conducted for profit, then, the mere fact that during some months the amount collected from the inmates of the hostel exceeds the cost of maintenance, it does not matter. There could be some months in summer and in those months the students will not be there in the hostel, wherein there would not be any amount collected from the inmates of the hostel, and the hostel would be empty, and during those months obviously the management will be suffering loss looked at from the maintenance angle. I am only referring to this aspect to emphasise that the dominant purpose is to be looked into for the purpose of seeing as to whether or not building needs to be exempted under Section 110 of the Act. Looked at from this angle, impugned order of the learned District Judge does not call for interference.