Anna Plastics v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/21ST KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10693 of 2012 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :
--------------------------
1. ANNA PLASTICS
2. CHALISSERY CHEMICALS & LUBRICANTS REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
3. UNIVERSAL PETRO CHEMICALS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX.
4. EAGLE PRODUCTS
5. JYOTHI VESSELS
6. J & D ENTERPRISES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
7. J.J. PLASTICS INDUSTRIES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
8. JOMAS INDUSTRIES
9. PARAMOUNT PLASTICS INDUSTRIES MAJOR INDUSTIRAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
...2/-
WP(C).No. 10693 of 2012 (J) -2-
10. POPULAR PLASTIC INDUSTRIES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
11. POLYMER MOULDERS REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
12. PRATHEEKSHAS SIVASAKTHY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
13. RAJESH KUMAR ELECTROPLATING REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
14. RAJI PLASTICS
15. SAROMA ENGINEERS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX.
16. ST.JOSEPHS ENGINEERS REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
17. MINI JOB WORKS
18. BLOW PLASTICS REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
19. G.R.PLASTICS
20. SREE LAKSHMI ROPES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
21. SUPREME PLASTICS INDUSTRIES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
22. GOLDEN VIEW PLATING REP. BY ITS PROPRIETORIX.
...3/-
WP(C).No. 10693 of 2012 (J) -3-
23. BLOW PLAST REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
24. PETROMER PLASTICS REP. BY ITS PARTNER.
25. THREE STAR ELECTRO PLATING WORK
26. MULTI TECH ENGINEERING
27. TWO STAR GOLD COVERING
28. TOOLING ALLIED INDIA
29. SUNSTAR POLYMERS REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR.
30. PAUL AND SONS PLASTICS
31. ANSA PLASTICS
32. BEEPEE GOLD IMITATIONS
33. VIPUL WOOD INDUSTRIES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
34. MOULD TECH
35. MODERN MACHINE MANUFACTURES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
...4/-
WP(C).No. 10693 of 2012 (J) -4-
36. DEVI KRIPA ENGINEERING WORKS BY ADVS.SRI.DINNY THOMAS SRI.ALBERT V. JOHN RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THRISSUR CORPORATION THRISSUR - 686 661, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, SC SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI.V.N.HARIDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...5/-
WP(C).No. 10693 of 2012 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1.
TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GO (RT) NO.591/94/ID DATED 5/7/94.
EXHIBIT P2.
TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 16.4.2007.
EXHIBIT P3.
TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT DATED 19.1.04.
EXHIBIT P4.
TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.12816 OF 2009. EXHIBIT P5.
TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.10104 OF 2009. EXHIBIT P6.
TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.6947 OF 2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
============= W.P. (C) No. 10693 of 2012 =================== Dated this, the 12th day of November, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
"(i) Declare that the petitioner units are not governed by the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994 and that they are exempted from the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act 1994 and the Rules framed there under and that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to demand any tax, fee, cess or any other charges and insist on the petitioners for taking any license or to renew any license as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act 1994 and the rules made thereunder.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent not to demand from the petitioners any tax, fee, cess or any other charges and insist on the petitioners for taking any license or to renew any license as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act 1994 and the Rules made thereunder."
2.
Reliance is placed on Ext.P1 Government Order dated 5/7/1994, which reads as under;
W.P(C) No.10693/12 -:2:- "Government Order that the Industrial units located in the Industrial Estates/Development Area/Development Mini Industrial Estate/ a consolidated list of which are appended to this order, shall be exempted from obtaining clearances from local bodies, as per the notifications read as first and second paper above." 3.
Ext.P1 apparently is only an exemption granted to the Industrial units located in the Industrial Estates/Development Area/Development Mini Industrial Estate etc. from obtaining clearance from local bodies. In other words, for construction of buildings, they may not be liable to obtain a building permit. However, there is no exemption from payment of tax which is applicable to any building within the Municipal area. In so far as there is no statutory provision which enables exemption being granted for assessment of property tax or service tax etc., in respect of buildings coming within a Municipal area, petitioners are not entitled for the relief as sought for. Under such circumstances, there is no basis for the claim made by the petitioners. Though the petitioners rely upon the judgment in Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLT 835), in the said judgment, what was
W.P(C) No.10693/12 -:3:- applicable was the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. A provision similar to Section 1(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is not available under the Municipalities Act. Under such circumstances, there is no basis for the above claim and accordingly, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Rp 13/11/2015 //True Copy// PS to Judge