REV. MSGR, PHILIP NJARALAKKATT MANAGER, MAR SLEEVA COLLEGE OF NURSING, PALAI, CHERPUNKAL PO, 686 584 Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Perspective: A Trust runs a nursing college; college buildings are exempted from building tax. But the college paid the tax in the previous year. In the next year, it objected to the Grama Panchayat's demand. In response, the Grama Panchayat has initiated coercive steps to realize the building tax. Aggrieved, the college assails the Grama Panchayat's action. These issues arise: 1. Has the whole building been exempted or only a part of it directly connected with 'educational purpose'; 2. Has the college been estopped from questioning the Grama Panchayat's action for it paid the tax in the previous year; 3. Has the petitioner acquiesced in the Grama Panchayat's demand for tax None of these issues, I hold, sustains itself against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the Manager of a Nursing College run by an Educational Trust. The third respondent is the Grama Panchayath in the territorial limits of which the petitioner's College is situated. In the course of time, the Grama Panchayath issued Ext.P5 revenue recovery demand notice insisting that the petitioner should pay Rs. 1,53,411.00 as building tax for the year 2009-2010. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) To be more specific, 'Palai Diocesan Medical Educational Trust' owns and manages 'Mar Sleeva College of Nursing'. The College has been taxed, and the Trust is answerable. But the Grama Panchayath had issued Ext.P5 notice to the petitioner, instead of either the College or the Trust. So the petitioner filed the writ petition, describing himself as the Manager of the College, though. The technicality that the Trust, a legal entity, or the College, in the alternative, ought to have filed the writ petition may not weigh us down. Disregarding the technicality, I may proceed further.