PRINCIPAL ST THOMAS COLLEGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner constructed a building for educational purposes and claimed exemption under S. 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 3 of the Act is as follows :-

(2.) By Ext. P4 order, exemption was refused on the ground that the "building in question is used for functioning a parallel college which is not recognised by the Government." The fact that building is used principally for educational purposes is not disputed. It is not stated in S. 3(1)(b) that only recognised educational institutions or regular colleges or schools should be exempted. Authorities cannot deny the exemption given by the Legislature by qualifying the words used in the section. It is not his function to add words to fill in what he thinks the gaps in the Act. He cannot usurp the function of the Legislature by adding the word 'recognised' before the words 'educational purposes.' The cardinal rule for the construction of Act of Parliament is that they should be constructed according to the intention expressed in the Act themselves. Words of the statute speak the intention of the Legislature. Intention of the Legislature is not to be speculated especially when the words are clear. (See Craies on statute law and Cross on Statutory Interpretation.). In the decision reported in Sr. Mariatta v. State of Kerala (1981 Ker 80) a similar question was considered by this Court. Section 72(1)(d) exempted property tax payable from buildings used for educational purposes. This Court held that user of the building is important and not recognition. In this connection, I also refer to the decision in Chakravarthy Hostel v. Municipal Commissioner, 1995 (2) Ker 588. Since the buildings used principally for educational purposes are exempted, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption as admittedly, purpose for which the building is constructed and used is not in dispute that it is for educational purposes.

(3.) In para 9 of the counter-affidavit a new case is set up by the respondents. It states as follows :"