Kerala High Court
Lourdes Hospital vs Corporation Of Cochin on 21 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.1407 OF 2021(A)
PETITIONER/S:
LOURDES HOSPITAL,
PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 012,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, FR. SHAIJU AUGUSTINE
THOPPIL.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
SRI.S.SREEDEV
SRI.RONY JOSE
SHRI.CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
COCHIN 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 SECRETARY,
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN-682 011
OTHER PRESENT:
SC: SRI.ABHILASH N
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.1407 OF 2021(A) 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction on the
part of the respondent in processing Ext.P10 application submitted by the
petitioner for issuance of an Ownership Certificate. The facts stated in the writ
petition would indicate that the petitioner had effected additional constructions on
a building that was constructed earlier and had applied for issuance of an
Occupancy Certificate as early as in the year 2012. The Occupancy Certificate
eventually came to be granted only on 10.01.2020. In the meanwhile, a dispute
arose between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation with regard to
payment of the property tax in respect of the building, in respect of which the
Occupancy Certificate was issued only in 2020. The petitioner took a stand by
placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sheela v. Kollam Municipal
Corporation [2017(4)KLT 887] that it was not liable to pay property tax in
respect of the period prior to the date of issuance of the Occupancy Certificate.
The respondent Corporation, however, refused to accept the said stand, inter alia,
on the ground that an appeal was pending against the judgment of the Single
Judge referred above, before the Division Bench. Be that as it may, the petitioner
subsequently applied for Ownership Certificate for the purposes of submitting
before the authorities concerned for obtaining the NABH accreditation. The
respondent Corporation, however, refused to issue the Ownership Certificate by
citing the pendency of the dispute regarding payment of property tax.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that inasmuch as the issue
regarding liability of the petitioner to property tax for the period prior to the date
of issuance of the Occupancy Certificate is currently decided in favour of the
petitioner by the judgment of the Single Judge referred above, although, the said
judgment is stated to be in appeal before the Division Bench, the dispute
regarding liability to property tax cannot, now be cited by the respondent
Corporation as a reason for not acting on the application for Ownership Certificate
and issuing the same to the petitioner, if the facts necessary for the same are
established before the Corporation.
Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the respondent
Corporation to accept the property tax as offered by the petitioner in Ext.P11
communication and issue to it an Ownership Certificate pursuant to Ext.P10
application, if the petitioner is found to satisfy the requirements therefor, without
insisting on payment of the differential property tax demanded by the respondent
Corporation, within an outer time limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the issuance of the Ownership
Certificate by the respondent Corporation shall be without prejudice to its
contentions as regards the liability of the petitioner to the differential property tax
claimed by it. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a
copy of the writ petition before the respondent Corporation for further action.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
sd
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
23.07.2012 AND NUMBERED AS NO. PMR2/3920/11
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND RECEIVED ON
07.08.2012.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.09.2012
AND NUMBERED AS PMR2/3980/11 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
13.10.2020 IN W.P.C NO. 23206/2012 AND
W.P.C NO. 9292/2013.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBERED AS NO.
313/RBI/2019 AND DATED 02.08.2019 ISSUED BY
THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4 A A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED
06.08.2019, MENTIONED IN EXT. P4.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE
DATED 10.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NUMBERED AS NO.
R.C2/100/2020 AND DATED 03.05.2020 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.09.2020 IN W.P.C NO. 17961/2020 ON THE
FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.04.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF AN OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
29.09.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.12.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.09.2020
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
