BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. NARAKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited ('BSNL', in short, hereinafter) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and the company is represented by the Divisional Engineer (Internal), Parur. According to the petitioner, it is a Government of India Enterprises, which provide Telecommunication services to all over India. The BSNL was formed during Oct. 2000, and till such time, the Telecommunication services were carried out by the Department of Telecommunication of India ('DOT', in short, hereinafter). The properties and buildings acquired by the DOT at that time are still in the name of the Union of India and precisely in the name of the President of India. Even though the said buildings and properties are now under the occupation of BSNL, they have not been transferred to the BSNL, so far and still stand as earlier. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get exemption from the payment of all kinds of taxes under Art. 285 of the Constitution of India. But, in contravention to the statutory protection, the 1st respondent Panchayat had issued Ext. P5 demand notice claiming an amount of Rs. 9,954/- as service charges under Rule 21 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Tax and the Surcharge Thereon) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules'). On receipt of Ext. P5, the petitioner had made Ext.P7 request to recall the notice, claiming the exemption under Art. 285 of the Constitution of India. Thereupon, the 1st respondent Panchayat had issued Exts.P8 and P9 notices informing that if the amount, as demanded in Ext.P6, is not paid, further steps for prosecution will be initiated against the petitioner. In the above circumstance, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with a prayer to declare that Rule 21 of the Rules is ultra vires under Art. 285 of the Constitution of India and to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P1, P3, P5, P6, P8and P9 notices.

(2.) The 1st respondent Panchayat entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit denying the exemption claimed under Art. 285(1) of the Constitution of India and raised two contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and thereby, the petitioner is not entitled to get exemption under Art. 285 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, the amount demanded under Exts. P6 and P8 is not a tax, as contemplated under Art. 285 of the Constitution of India, and the same is a service charge for the usage and maintenance of drainage, sanitation, water connection, sewage etc., provided by the Panchayat to all the people in the Panchayat, including the petitioner.

(3.) Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.