The National Institute Of ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2001 Latest Caselaw 1658 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 49/89 and 13/97. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows.

2. The appellant, National Institute of Immunology, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. XXI) of 1860, with the Registrar of Societies, Delhi Administration, Delhi. It is claimed by the appellant that it was promoted and established by Government of India for undertaking charitable activity in the field of basic and applied immunology. At present, the appellant is engaged in important research projects relating to immunological approaches to contraception and the development of vaccines for the cure of leprosy. The funding of the appellant comes from the Government of India in the shape of grants-in-aid and from various institutions like the International Development Research Centre of Canada, The United Nation Development Programme (UNDP), The Rockefeller Foundation of U.S.A, The United States Agency for International Development, The Indian Council of Medical Research, The Family Planning Foundation, The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and UNESCO, etc.

3. During the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, the appellant received contributions as per the following details:-

  1. Government of 
India,
Department of
Science and
Technology.           2,58,60,000              2,84,60,000  3,15,17,000

2. I.D.R.C.
Canada.                  4,64,385                1,74,514         7,65,000

3. I.C.M.R.             20,30,440                34,04,880       28,36,660

4. Family Planning 
Foundation.            ----                   1,00,000         -----

5. U.N.D.P.               ----                 US$ 10,00,000       -----
                                               (For 3 years)
                                    
6. Rockefeller
Foundation.             ----                     -----           US$ 35,000

7. USAID                 ----                US$ 10,00,000       US$ 25,000

8. C.S.I.R.              11,850                  39,230               61,920

9. UNESCO               -----                     35,780               -----

 

4. The appellant has been provided with fifteen acres of land, free of cost and without any consideration on long term lease in Jawharlal Nehru University Campus to enable the appellant to construct necessary buildings and infrastructure to carry out its objects. The respondent, MCD by its notice dated 5th September, 1985 called upon the appellant to furnish a true return, as per the proforma attached therewith, regarding the buildings constructed over the aforesaid land by the appellant. The information was sought from the appellant with a view of determine the property tax in respect of the aforesaid buildings under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the DMC Act'). In response to the aforesaid letter, the appellant by its letter dated 25th September, 1985, claimed exemption from the levy of property (general) tax on the ground that the institution is an autonomous body and functioning under the administrative control of Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. The appellant by the same letter requested the respondent to forward a set of requisite forms to enable the appellant to apply for exemption from assessment and payment of tax. Thereupon the MCD by its letter dated 5th October, 1985 drew the attention of the Administration Officer of the appellant to Section 115(4) of the DMC Act and observed that the appellant does not appear to qualify for exemption. Through the aforesaid letter o the MCD the latter was told that it shall be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of its claim at the time of assessment of the property tax. At the same time the appellant was asked to comply with the notice dated 5th September, 1985. On 11th October, 1985, the appellant wrote a letter to Additional Tax Recovery Collector of the respondent expressing its inability to give complete details sought by the respondent vide its letter dated 5th September, 1985 as the construction of buildings was still in progress and not even a single phase of the work had been completed. Besides it was, alia, pointed out that the property of the institution actually is the property of the Government of India and the appellant was not a commercial organisation. This being the stand, it was claimed that the appellant qualified for exemption from payment of property tax. But the respondent, MCD did not accept the claim of the appellant that it was immune from levy of property tax and communicated its views in this regard to the appellant by its letter dated 22nd October, 1985. In the letter the respondent, while drawing the attention of the appellant to Article 285(1) of the Constitution, emphasised that the appellant was liable to pay property tax. It was pointed out that appellant being an autonomous body, having been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860, its property had to be treated like other properties within the limits of MCD which are subject to property tax in accordance with the provisions of the DMC Act. Having said that, it asked the appellant to comply with the notice dated 5th September, 1985. The appellant vide its letter dated 23rd December, 1985 again expressed its inability to give details sought by the respondent vide notice dated 5th September, 1985 on the ground that the construction work was still in progress. Besides, it was stated that being engaged in vital research project of national importance it would be exempted from payment of property tax.

5. There was further exchange of correspondence between the aforesaid parties. Special reference, however, needs to be made to the letter of the MCD dated 5th February, 1986 and the response of the appellant thereto dated 17th March, 1986. In its letter of 5th February, 1986, the respondent again drew the attention of the appellant to the notice dated 5th September, 1985 and its grievance that the information sought by it had been withheld by the appellant despite protracted correspondence. The respondent also threatened appellant with legal action for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of the DMC Act by the appellant. The appellant in its reply dated 17th March, 1986 again claimed that it was an autonomous body which functioned directly under the control and supervision of the Government of India through a Committee of persons appointed/nominated by the Government/Government servants. It is also claimed that the Government of India exercised functional control over the institute. It also drew the attention of the respondent to the fact that the land over which the property had been constructed belonged to Jawaharlal Nehru University, which licensed the same to the institute in consultation with the Government of India. The appellant repeated its request to the respondent to exempt it from levy of property tax under the provisions of Section 119 of the DMC Act on the same lines as the Government properties were given exemption.

6. It appears that the respondent did not accede to the request of the appellant and issued a notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act dated 16th March, 1986, by virtue of which the proposed rateable value of the aforesaid property was fixed at Rs. 21,60,000/- with effect from 1st April, 1985. The notice called upon the appellant to file objections, if any, but the date by which the objections were to be filled were not mentioned in the notice. This notice was followed by another notice dated 14th August, 1986 calling upon the appellant to file objections, if any, to the proposed amendment within the stipulated period. The notice, however, did not fix any time within which objections were to be filed. Since no objections were received from the appellant, the rateable value of the property was confirmed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 21,60,000/- with effect from 1st April, 1985. On the basis of the confirmed rateable value, the respondent issued a bill to the appellant on 8th September, 1986 calling upon it to pay a sum of Rs. 15,08,936.10 on account of the property tax in respect of the aforesaid buildings until the period ending 1985-87. The appellant was called upon to liquidate the tax liability within fifteen days of the presentation of the demand by the respondent. The notice also specified the options available to the respondent to recover the dues from the appellant. By yet another letter dated 29th October, 1986, the Additional Tax Recovery Collector MCD asked the respondent to pay the aforesaid demand of Rs. 15,08,936.10 to avert the emergence of an ugly situation. Again by a letter dated November, 10, 1986 the respondent asked the appellant to discharge its liability. Stirred by the threatened action, the appellant in order to buttress its claim for exemption from levy and payment of property tax furnished the requisite information/material to the respondent by means of its letter dated December 11, 1986. This letter reads thus:-

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF IMMUNOLOGY SHAHEED JIT SINGH MAR, NEW DELHI

B. Bose

Manager (Administration)

D.O. No. 19/1/84-NIL

Dated 11.12.1986

Dear Shri Swami,

Kindly refer to your D.O. letter No. TAX/HQ/CRP/86/1465 dated 26.11.86 regarding payment of property taxes in respect of buildings of the NIL at Shahid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.

The information required by you in para 2 thereof is sent herewith.

1. The copies of the balance sheet and audited accounts for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86 of the Institution are enclosed.

2. The Donors (Grantee) are as under:-

(a) Ministry of Science & Technology, Deptt. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India.

(b) Indian Council of Medical Research.

(c) International Development Research Centre of Canada.

(d) Family Planning Foundation.

The Institution has to income of its own and is fully dependent on the grants (donation) received from various Institutions as stated above.

3. The Institution has let out no part of its property on rent. The residential accommodation which have been constructed in the campus of the Institute are meant for the scientists of this Institute and have been allotted only to the Scientists and also some other maintenance staff. The rent is recovered from their salary as per Govt. rules and is credited to the Govt. grants. It is not an income of the Institute at all.

I hope the above information would satisfy you requirement. I shall be thankful if this institution is exempted from the property tax as this has been created only for the welfare of the mankind.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-        

(B. Bose)      

Shri P.D. Swami,

Addl. Tax Recovery Collector (CRP),

Assessment & Collection Deptt.

(Headquarters), S.P. Mukherjee Marg,

Opp. Delhi Rly Station,

Delhi-6."

7. In response to the aforesaid letter of the appellant, the respondent on February 18, 1987 informed the appellant by a written communication that the matter was reviewed. But the request of the appellant for grant of exemption was not found to be tenable on the ground that the appellant is dependent on grants made from the Government of India which are subject to checks and balances, which cannot be treated in the nature of voluntary contributions so as to qualify for exemption from levy of general tax under Section 115(4) of the DMC Act. This letter was followed by a letter dated March 10, 1987 calling upon the appellant to pay the demand. The appellant being aggrieved by letters dated 16th March; 1986; 8th September, 1986; 29th October, 1986; 10th November, 1986; 18th February, 1987 and 10th March, 1987 filed Civil Writ Petition NO. 791/87 in this Court. By the same writ petition, the appellant also impugned the action of the respondent in proposing to amend the assessment list for the year 1988-89 by amending the rateable value of the properties for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the society. The appellant filed a separate writ petition being Civil Writ Petition NO. 3820/96 challenging the notice dated September 7, 1996 and the accompanying bills by virtue of which the demand of property tax was raised in respect of residential and non-residential buildings for the period ending March 1997. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by separate orders of the learned single judges of this Court. While C.W.P. No. 791/97 was dismissed on April 27, 1989, C.W.P. No. 3820/96 was dismissed on October 7, 1996. In C.W.P. No. 3820/96 the learned Single Judge took the view that the appellant not having preferred any appeal against the bills, the writ petition was not competent. In C.W.P. No. 791/97 the learned single Jude while dismissing the petition held that the appellant does not qualify for exemption under Section 115(4) of the DMC Act for the following reasons:-

(1) The appellant is not a voluntary organisation as its governing body consists of ex-officio officers of the Government of India.

(2) the appellant has been floated by the Government of India and its grant-in-aid is regulated by statutory rules and is claimed as a matter of right. This being so the grant-in-aid received by the appellant from the Government of India cannot be said to be a voluntary contribution;

(3) The so-called voluntary contributions received from various organisations appear to have been advanced and utilised for the following specific projects:-

 "i) International Develop                        Project on Anti-
ment Research Centre                         Conceptive Technology
(DRC) Canada.

ii) United States Agency                         Project on Contra-
for International                         ceptive Development
development (USAD)                         Reproductive Immuno-
Virginia. logy.

iii) United Nations                         Project on Develop-
Development Programme:                         ment of diagnosis
(UNDP) NEW DELHI.                         method using modern
immunological
methods.

iv) Rockefellar Foundation                         Project on Studies in
New York.                         immunological methods
of fertility."
 

The amounts received by the appellant from the aforesaid organisations were not voluntary contributions and were not required at all for the existence and running of the institution. The so-called voluntary contributions were made towards the costs of specific projects and the appellant was accountable to the donors.

(4) There is no evidence to suggest that the funds were being applied for charitable purpose, for the general good of the public at large.

8. Besides the learned single Judge held that the petition raised disputed questions of fact which the writ Court will not be able to decide. The learned single Judge also was of the view that the appellant having failed to take recourse to the alternative remedy of appeal provided in the DMC Act cannot seek the interference of the writ Court.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The primary question which requires to be determined in this appeal is whether under Section 115(4) of the DMC Act the appellant is entitled for exemption from payment and levy of property tax. In this regard ti will be appropriate to examine Section 115(4) of the DMC Act. The said provision reads as follows:-

"115. Premises in respect of which property taxes are to be levied. - [***]

(4) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the general tax shall be levied in respect of all land and building in Delhi except -

(a) lands and buildings or portions of lands and buildings exclusively occupied and used for public worship or by a society or body for a charitable purpose;

Provided that such society or body is supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions, applies its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its object and does not pay any dividend or bonus to its members.

Explanation. - "Charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education and medical relief but does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teaching;

(b) lands and buildings vested in the Corporation, in respect of which the said tax, if levied, would under the provisions of this Act be leviable primarily on the Corporation;

(c) agricultural lands and buildings (other than dwelling houses).

xx xx xx "

10. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision including explanation to (a) above shows that property tax will not be levied on a premises provided the following requirements are satisfied:-

(1) Lands and buildings or portions thereof are exclusively occupied and used for public worship or by a society or body for a charitable purpose;

(2) The society or body which is constituted for charitable purpose is supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions;

(3) The society or body applies its profits or other income in promoting its objects;

(4) The society does not pay any dividend or bonus to its members.

11. We are supported in our view by the following decisions:-

1. New Delhi Holy Family Hospital Society v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, ;

2. The New Delhi Holy Family Hospital Society v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., ;

3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Children Book Trust, ,

4. Christian Children Fund Inc. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., ;

12. In order to determine whether the appellant fulfills the aforesaid ingredients it will be relevant to examine the objects for which the appellant society was constituted. The objects are detailed in its memorandum of association which read as per below :-

"(a) To undertake, aid, promote, guide and coordinate research of a high calibre in basic and applied immunology;

(b) To provide and promote effective linkages on a continuing basis between various scientific and research agencies/laboratories and other organisations working in the country in the field of immunology, vaccine development and related areas;

(c) To organise post-graduated courses, workshops, seminars, symposia and training programmes of a specialised nature in the field of immunology, vaccine development and related areas;

(d) To organise training programmes for technicians in immunological methods and related techniques;

(e) To serve as a National Reference Centre for Immunology and to provide consultancy services to medical and veterinary institutions, public health agencies and industry in the country;

(f) To carry out research for development of new vaccines and immunological reagents for communicable diseases; as also for improvement of the currently available vaccines with deficient immunological properties;

(g) To develop immunological approaches for control and promotion of male and female fertility;

(h) Ti interact with industry for manufacture of vaccines and immunological reagents;

(i) To establish, maintain and manage laboratories, workshops, stores and other facilities for the efficient prosecution of scientific and technological research in immunology, vaccine development and related areas;

(j) To collaborate with foreign research institutions and laboratories and other international organisations in fields relevant to the objectives of the Institute;

(k) To public and disseminate information relating to results of research;

(l) To institute professorships, other faculty positions, fellowships, research cadre positions and scholarships etc., for Realizing the objectives of the Institute;

(m) To establish affiliation with recognised universities and institutions of higher learning for the purpose of enabling research scholars to register for post-graduate degrees;

(n) To receive grants-in-aid in cash or in other forms from the Government of India, State Government, Charitable Institutions/ Trusts, individuals and industry within the country;

(o) To receive, with the prior approval of the Central Government, monetary assistance from foreign sources including international organisations for training programmes, scientific research and other activities;

(p) To acquire by gift, purchase, exchange, lease, hire or otherwise howsoever any property moveable and/or immoveable and to construct improve, alter, demolish or repair buildings and structures as may be necessary or convenient for carrying on the activities of the Institute;

(q) For the purpose of the Institute, to draw and accept and make and endorse, discount and negotiate Government of India and other Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange, Cheques or other negotiable instruments;

(r) For investing the funds of or money entrusted to the Institute, to open such securities or in such manner as may from time to time be determined by the Governing Body and to sell or transpose such investment;

(s) To do all other such things as may be necessary, incidental or conductive to the attainment of all or any other above objectives; and

(t) To take over the present ICMR-WHO Research and Training Centre in Immunology located at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences together with its present scientific and research activities, ancillary project grants and related research facilities."

13. A mere look at the aforesaid objects and reasons show that the appellant society was established inter alia for charitable purpose of undertaking research in the field of medical relief and education. The charitable purpose for which the appellant has been constituted is not being disputed by the respondent. It is also not disputed that the appellant is working for the objectives for which it was constituted. For the purpose of providing medical relief it is inter alia carrying on research in basic and applied immunology. It is carrying on research for development of new vaccines and immunological reagents and related fields. Thus, there is no doubt that the appellant was constituted and working for charitable purposes. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that no portion of the income of the appellant is being paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise by way of profits to its members. This is clear from para 51 of the memorandum of association which reads as under:-

"51. The income and property of the Society, howsoever derived, shall be applied towards the promotion of the objects thereof as set forth in this Memorandum of Association subject nevertheless in respect of the expenditure of grants made by the Government of India to such limitations as the Government of India may from time to time impose. No portion of the income and property of the Society shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly by way of dividends, bonus, or otherwise howsoever by way of profit, to the persons who at any time are to have been members of the Society or to any of them or to any persons claiming through them or any of them provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the payment in good faith of remuneration of any member thereof or other person in return for any service rendered to the Society."

14. In view of the aforesaid para, the respondent rightly did not dispute the fact that the appellant was not paying any profits, dividends or bonus to any member of the society or any person claiming through them. Even the learned Single Judge in CWP 791/87 has found that the appellant is not transferring any profits, dividends or bonus to any of the members of the society. It has also not been urged and claimed by the respondent before us that the profits, if any, to the appellant do not feed the charity and are being diverted to non-charitable purposes.

15. The real controversy between the parties appears to be on the question whether or not funds received by he appellants from the Government of India can be considered to be voluntary contributions of the Government of India. In order to resolve the controversy we will first scan the relevant paras of the memorandum of association of the appellant dealing with the matter of acquisition of funds. Paras 49 and 50 of the memorandum of association need to be noticed. These reads as under:-

"49. The funds of the Society will consist of the following:

i) Lumpsum and recurring grant made by the Government of India.

ii) Fees and other charges received by the Institute.

iii) All money received by the Society by way of grants, gifts, donations or other contributions.

50. All funds of the Society shall be paid into the Society's account with Treasuries/Sub-Treasuries including Reserve Bank of India, branches of the State Bank of India and its subsidiaries and in a scheduled/nationalised bank and shall not be withdrawn except on cheques signed and countersigned by such officers as may be duly empowered on his behalf by the Chairman."

16. The respondent does not dispute that the appellant receives lump sum and recurring grant from the Government of India. The stand of the respondent is that grant is not voluntary in nature. The learned Single Judge in CWP No. 791/87 accepting the stand of the respondent held that the grant received by the appellant from the Government of India was regulated by statutory rules and was being paid with certain checks and balances. The learned Single Judge has not mentioned the statutory rules which regulate the grants-in-aid received by the appellant. It has also not been specified as to what are the checks and balances with which the moneys are advanced by the Government of India as grants-in-aid. The learned Single Judge has not explained as to how the checks and balances detract from the voluntary nature of the grants-in-aid. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not claimed before us that the grants-in-aid are being regulated by statutory rules and are being paid to the appellant subject to certain checks and balances, which show that they are not voluntary in nature. Since such an argument has not been advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent and there is nothing on record to substantiate the observations of the learned Single Judge, it appears to us that the grants-in-aid which are paid to the appellant by the Government of India are voluntary in nature and they can be stopped at any point of time by the latter. It is not the case of the respondent that the appellant strikes fear in the mind of the donor for securing the grants. It is also not the case of the respondent that the appellant coerces or pressurises the Government to pay the grants to it. The appellant is not in a position to command the Government to pay the grants-in-aid to it. It may be noted that the Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology, Depart of Science and Technology, has issued guide-lines for implementing research projects. According to para 13 of the guide-lines, the Department of Science and Technology reserves the right to terminate the grant at any stage if it is convinced that the grant has not been properly utilised or appropriate progress is not being made. This shows that the grant cannot be claimed as a matter of right by any research institute funded by the Government. The grant can be stopped at any stage. It is not compulsive in nature. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-IV v. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council, (1983) 143 ITR 579; while examining the nature of grants-in-aid made by the Government to provide certain institutions with sufficient funds to carry on their charitable activities, held that the institutions to which the grants-in-aid are made have no right to ask for the grants and it is solely within the discretion of the Government to provide grants to institutions of charitable nature. Thus, it appears to us that the learned Single Judge was not right in coming to the conclusion that the grant is being claimed by the appellant as a matter of right and cannot be said to be a voluntary contribution.

17. The learned Single Judge found that though the objectives of the appellant institute were laudable, the funds received from various organisations were spent on specific projects, the results of which were sent to the donor countries/organisations. According to the learned Single Judge, there was no evidence to suggest that these funds were being used for charitable proposes, i.e., its results were applied for the general good of the public at large. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant while admitting that the appellant received donations from international organisations, namely, International Development Research Centre, Canada; United States Agency for International Development, Virginia; United Nations Development Programme, New Delhi; Rockefeller Foundation, New York, etc., for undertaking research projects like project on anticonceptive technology, project on contraceptive development and reproductive immunology, project on development of diagnosis method using modern immunological methods, and project on studies in immunological methods of fertility, submitted that the results of these projects are being applied for the good of the man kind. We have no manner of doubt that this is so. The very nature of research work supports the claim. It was pointed out that vide letter dated December 11, 1986 the information required by the respondent before review of its earlier decision was sent by the appellant to the respondent. The information comprised of balance sheets and audited accounts, and the list of donors. It was also pointed out that the appellant is fully dependent on the grants. Besides, it was pointed out that the appellant has not let out its properties and the residential accommodation which have been constructed in the campus of the Jawaharlal Nehru University for any commercial purpose and the same are meant for this scientists working with the appellant and the rents are being recovered from their salaries as per Government rules and credited to the Government grants. It is not disputed that after the receipt of this letter the respondent reviewed the matter though ultimately it maintained its earlier view. It is also not disputed that after the appellant had sent the information, no further information was sought from it by the respondent before taking a view which was communicated to the appellant by its letter dated February 18, 1987. In case the respondent had any doubt as to the utilisation of the donations, it could have sought further information from the appellant, and in case the appellant was unable to show that the funds were being utilised for charitable purposes, then a grouse could be made, but without asking the appellant to furnish evidence to show that the funds are being used for charitable purposes, no adverse conclusion could be drawn by the respondent. It also appears from the balance sheet filed by the appellant that 95% of the funds are being received from the Government for medical research. Therefore, when the bulk of the funds are being received and used by the appellant for charitable purposes, it cannot be said that just because a minuscule proportion of the funds to the extent of 5% only are being received from the donors for specific research, it would alter the purpose for which the society is functioning. At least there is no dispute that bulk of funds are being provided by the Government of India to support the appellant for fulfillment of its objectives for which it has been established. Even if a society which is occupying and utilising lands and buildings exclusively for charitable purposes is supported in part by voluntary contributions for promoting its objects, it will not be denied exemption from levy of property tax just because the society is not supported wholly by voluntary contributions and is only partly supported by voluntary contributions. We should not, however, be understood to be laying down that even a disproportionately small amount of voluntary contribution for its support will qualify it to claim exemption when bulk of the funds received by the society are not voluntary contribution. To qualify for exemption apart from satisfying other requirements, it must be shown that the bulk of the money for its support has been received by way of voluntary contributions. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Children Book Trust (supra) it was held that the society claiming exemption will have to show that for its sustenance and maintenance it has to depend, either wholly or in part, on voluntary contributions and the word "part" signifies an appreciable amount and not an insignificant one. In the instant case, as already pointed out, the greater part of the voluntary contributions are received from the Government of India in the shape of grants-in-aid. Even the funds received by the appellant from donors other than the Government of India are also for medical research. This research in essence is for the welfare of mankind. The dominant and in fact the sole purpose of the appellant is to undertake activities which subserve charitable purposes mentioned in its memorandum of association. There is no allegation that the donations received from donors are compulsive in nature. Thus, the premises of the appellant which are exclusively occupied and used for the research projects are being undoubtedly used for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 115(4) of the DMC Act.

18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we may now sum up the position as regards the test or the requirements to be satisfied for claiming exemption from levy of property tax under Section 115(4) of the Act and the question whether the society satisfies the requirements of the test.

(1) The Test: Lands and Buildings which are exclusively occupied and utilised for charitable purposes by a society or body qualify for exemption from levy of the 'general tax' provided the society or body is supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions and applies its profits and other income in promoting its objects and does not pay any dividend or bonus to its members.

(2) Whether the society satisfies the test?

19. The objects of the appellant are entirely charitable. It carries on work of medical research and education in allied field. It is sustained, maintained and nurtured by voluntary grants-in-aid of the Government and donations. The Institute is not distributing any profits or dividends or bonus to its members.

20. Thus, we are of the view that the appellant satisfies the requirements of Section 115(4) of the DMC Act for being exempted from payment of property tax in respect of the premises which are being exclusively used and occupied for charitable purpose of research and education in the allied field.

21. It was urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the appellant has not approached the appellate authority against the action of the assessing authority and had straightway invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court, we should in our discretion dismiss the instant appeal. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel. Normally the court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution where another efficacious and adequate alternative remedy is available. This, however, is a self imposed limitation on the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As rightly pointed out in New Delhi Holy Family Hospital Society v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), this is a question of discretion and not of jurisdiction. The appeals have been pending in this Court for a long period of time. In the circumstances, therefore, at this stage it will not be in the interest of justice to ask the appellant to invoke the alternative remedy of appeal.

22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals succeed and the orders of the learned Single Judges dated April 27, 1989 and October 7, 1996 are set aside. Accordingly, the assessing authority is directed to grant exemption from levy of property tax to the appellant in respect of the premises of the appellant which are being exclusively occupied and used for research purposes. The assessing authority is also directed to issue revised bills in consonance with this order. Both the appeals stand disposed of.