Kerala High Court
Mar Baselios School vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24012 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
REV.FR.DR.ABRAHAM THALOTHIL,
AGED 60 YEARS
DIRECTOR BROOK INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, RAJAGIRI, SASTHAMCOTTA
P.O, KOLLAM DT., PIN - 690521
BY ADV SHRI.H.RAMANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPT(EDUCATION-A), GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 SECRETARY,
DEPT OF REVENUE & TAXES GOVT.SECRETATIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
4 SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT ,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SMT.DEEPA K.R. , SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR THE STATE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.11697/2025, 24150/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 14.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11697 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SARVODAYA VIDYALAYA
REP BY BURSAR (FINANCE MANAGER) MAR IVANIOS VIDYA NAGAR,
NALANCHIRA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP BY FR.JOJI M, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
SHRI.H.RAMANAN
SHRI.ALAN PHILIP ALEX
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT DEPT GOVT.
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP BY SECRETARY
PMG, VELLAYAMBALAM ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 THE SECETARY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PMG,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADV SHRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION
SMT. DEEPA K.R. , SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR THE STATE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025
ALONG WITH WP(C)No.24012/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
14.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24150 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 NAZARETH SCHOOL,
CALICUT ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676121, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SR CIJI. P.P.
2 ALPHONSA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673573, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
FR.JILSON JOSEPH
3 ST.MARY'S ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
KODANCHERY P.O, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE- 673580, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SOUMYA JOSEPH
4 LITTLE FLOWER ENGLISH MEDIUM,
SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARUVANCHAL P.O, KANNUR- REP BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SR.REENA GEORGE, PIN - 670571
5 MARIA AGNES ENGLISH MEDIUM CONVENT SCHOOL,
KUREEPUZHA, PERINAD P.O, KOLLAM - 691601, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
USHA SUNITHA MARY
6 DELTA CENTRAL SCHOOL,
AYLARA, YEROOR, KOLLAM- REP BY ITS MANAGER MOHANAN PILLAI N,
PIN - 691312
7 KARICKAM INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL (KIPS),
KARICKAM P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, REP BY ITS MANAGER, DR.
ABRAHAM KARICKAM, PIN - 691531
8 VIMALA HRIDAYA ISC SCHOOL,
PAZHAYATTINKUZHY, VADAKKEVILA P.O KOLLAM- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SR. NORMA MARY, PIN - 691010
9 CARMELGIRI ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
THALANJI, POOKOTTUMANNA, MALAPPURAM- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SR.
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 4
JOHNCY JACOB, PIN - 679334
0 SACRED HEART SCHOOL,
KUREEPUZHA P.O, PERINAD KOLLAM, REP BY ITS ACADEMIC DIRECTOR
FREDERIC LEON FERNANDEZ, PIN - 691601
11 INFANT JESUS ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL,
THIRUVAMPADY P.O, KOZHIKODE, REP BY ITS HEADMISTRESS SR
SANCTA MARIA, PIN - 673603
12 NAVAJYOTHI ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
EDATHOTTY, KAKKAYANGAD P.O KANNUR- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SR
LALI THOMAS A., PIN - 670673
13 SANJOS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
TALIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SR. MANJU P.A., PIN
- 670141
14 MAR THOMA CENTRAL SCHOOL,
CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O, AYUR KOLLAM- REP BY ITS SECRETARY M.A.
ABRAHAM, PIN - 691534
15 MARYGIRI ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
PODIKKALAM, KOOTTUMUGHAM P.O, KANNUR- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
BRO. REGY SCARIA, PIN - 670631
16 ANAND BHAVAN CENTRAL SCHOOL,
ANCHAL, KOLLAM REP BY ITS MANAGER ADV G. SURENDRAN, PIN -
691306
17 INFANT JESUS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
KENICHIRA P.O, WAYANAD- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SR. LINCY THOMAS,
PIN - 673596
18 ASSUMPTION PUBLIC SCHOOL,
ANTONYKKAD, KAVALAMUKKATTA P.O POOKKOTTUMPADAM,
MALAPPURAM- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SR. SHEELAMMA JOSEPH, PIN -
679332
19 ST.GEORGE SCHOOL,
AMPALATHUMKALA P.O EZHUKONE, KOLLAM- REP BY ITS MANAGER FR.
VARGHESE KARIMPALIL, PIN - 691505
0 DON BOSCO CENTRAL SCHOOL (CBSE),
PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL FR. JOSH
KANJOOPARAMBIL, PIN - 686011
21 DON BOSCO HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (STATE),
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 5
PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL FR. MARTIN
KURUVANMAKAL, PIN - 686011
22 ST.JOSEPH'S NAZARETH SCHOOL,
MANAMPUZHA P.O, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SR.
MERCY CLG, PIN - 691553
23 ST.MARY'S SCHOOL NARIPPIL,
PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SR.
JOLLY JOSEPH P., PIN - 695018
24 ST.FRANCIS ASSISI EM SCHOOL,
KOTTAVATTOM JN, ELAMPAL P.O KOLLAM, REP BY ITS MANAGER FR.
SUNNY THOMAS, PIN - 691501
25 WOODLEMPARK PUBLIC SCHOOL,
CHERUKULAM P.O, CHUNDA, KOLLAM REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL RENJINI T.,
PIN - 691306
26 MARY MATHA PUBLIC SCHOOL,
KODUMTHARA, AZHOOR ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA- REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SR. DAISE MARIA, PIN - 689645
27 SARVODAYA CENTRAL VIDYALAYA,
MAR IVANIOS VIDYA NAGAR, NALANCHIRA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- REP BY ITS MANAGER FR. KOSHY
CHIRAKKAROTTU, PIN - 695015
28 MAR BASELIOS SCHOOL,
MARUTHAMONPALLY, POOYAPALLY P.O KOLLAM- REP BY ITS MANAGER
FR. MATHEWS KUZHIVILA, PIN - 691537
29 CHRIST CMI PUBLIC SCHOOL,
KALYAN LN ROAD, MAVUNGAL BALLA P.O, KANHANGAD, KANNUR- REP
BY ITS PRINCIPAL FR. GEORGE PUNCHAYIL, PIN - 671531
0 CARMALGIRI CENTRAL SCHOOL,
11TH MILE,BHARATHEEPURAM KOLLAM- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SHALI
XAVIER, PIN - 691312
31 FATIMAGIRI ENGLISH SCHOOL,
NILAMBUR RSPO, MALAPPURAM REP BY ITS MANAGER SR ANNIE M.I.,
PIN - 679330
32 ST.ANTONY'S PUBLIC SCHOOL,
NEAR FCI, VALIYATHURA, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- REP
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SR. JOAN DIPHEN, PIN - 695008
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 6
33 AUXILIUM ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
KOTTIYAM P.O, KOLLAM- REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SR. JAICY ANTONY, PIN
- 691020
34 VIMALA CENTRAL SCHOOL,
KARAMCODU, KOLLAM- REP BY ITS MANAGER FR.LIJO P.CHACKO, PIN -
691579
35 UNAIDED SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM (USMAC),
REG. NO.2/2018/IV, RAJAGIRI, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM, REP BY ITS
CHAIRMAN REV.FR.DR.ABRAHAM THALOTHIL, PIN - 690521
BY ADV SHRI.H.RAMANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPT (EDUCATION - A), GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 SECRETARY,
DEPT OF REVENUE & TAXES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
SMT. DEEPA K.R., SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR THE STATE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025
ALONG WITH WP(C)No.24012/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
14.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34856 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
KOTTAYAM DON BOSCO SOCIETY,
REG NO.K 101/92, DON BOSCO, PUTHUPPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT -686011, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT FR. DEVASSY
CHIRAKEL
BY ADV SHRI.H.RAMANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 SECRETARY,
PUTHUPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUTHUPPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686011
BY ADV SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SMT. DEEPA K.R., SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR THE STATE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025
ALONG WITH WP(C)No.24012/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
14.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9941 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
MAR BASELIOS SCHOOL,
MARUTHAMONPALLY, POOYAPALLY P.O, KOLLAM, REP BY FR. MATHEWS
KUZHIVILA, PIN - 691537
BY ADV SHRI.H.RAMANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP .BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE SECRETARY,
POOYAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOLLAM, AYOOR ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN
- 691537
BY ADV SIJU KAMALASANAN, SC, POOYAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SMT.DEEPA K.R., SPL.GOVT. PLEADER FOR THE STATE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025
ALONG WITH WP(C) No.24012/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
14.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10344 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
ST.GEORGE SCHOOL,
AMPALATHUMKALA P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM, REP BY FR. VARGHESE
KARIMPALIL, PIN - 691505
BY ADV SHRI.H.RAMANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 SECRETARY,
NEDUVATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEDUVATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN -
691334
SMT. DEEPA K.R., SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR THE STATE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025
ALONG WITH WP(C) No.24012/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
14.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 10
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.24012/2023, 11697/2025, 24150/2023,
34856/2023, 9941/2024, 10344/2024]
…
In all these cases, the petitioners are unaided schools or the
trust/organizations conducting unaided educational institutions,
which are imparting education upto the standard twelve. The
common issue raised in all these writ petitions, pertains to the
amendment made to the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act, 1994 and Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which deal with the
exemption from paying the property tax, to the buildings
exclusively used for educational purposes or educational allied
purposes under the ownership of such educational institutions.
The relevant provisions are Sections 207 of the Kerala Panchayat
Raj Act and Section 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act. Those
provisions, before the amendment, as per the Kerala Finance
(No.2) Act, 2023 with effect from 01.04.2023 stood as follows:
Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994
“207. Exemption from Tax, Cess etc.- (1) The following
buildings and lands shall be exempted from property tax as
may be levied under Section 203 and service cess as may
be levied under sub-section (2) of Section 200, namely:-
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 11
(a) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) building exclusively used for educational purposes or
allied purposes under the ownership of educational
institutions owned by the Government, aided or functioning
with the financial assistance of the Government and the
hostel buildings wherein the students of the said
institutions reside;
(ba) building exclusively used for educational purposes
under the ownership of educational institutions having the
recognition of the Government and upto the level of Higher
Secondary and hostel buildings in which the students of
such institutions reside;
(c) xxxx xxxx xxxx
Kerala Municipality Act, 1994
235. Exemption from property tax, service cess etc.- The
following buildings and lands shall be exempted from the
property tax as may be levied under section 233 and
service cess as may be levied under sub-section (4) of
section 230, namely:-
(a) buildings set apart for public worship and actually so
used or used for incidental purposes, religious study
centres.
(b) buildings exclusively used for educational purposes or
allied purposes under the ownership of educational
institutions owned by the Government, aided or functioning
with the financial assistance of the Government and the
hostel buildings wherein the students of the said
institutions reside.
(ba) buildings exclusively used for educational purposes
and upto the level of Higher Secondary under the
ownership of educational institutions having recognition of
the Government and hostel buildings in which the students
of such institutions reside
(c) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 12Now as per the Amendment Act (Act 18 of 2023), amendments
were made in the said provisions as follows:
In section 207 sub section 1(b) was substituted with the
following:
“(b) buildings exclusively used for educational purposes or
educational allied purposes under the ownership of
educational institutions, owned by the Central Government
or State Government, aided or functioning with the
financial assistance of the Central Government or the State
Government, and the hostel buildings wherein the students
of the said institutions reside.
Apart from the above clause (ba) of sub section (1) of
section 207 was omitted.”
Similar, amendments were made in clause (b) of section
235 and clause (ba) of section 235 of Municipality Act was
omitted.
2. The consequence of such amendment as far as the
petitioners are concerned is that, they were deprived of the
exemption from payment of building tax for the buildings in
which they are conducting educational institutions. In other
words, the exemption enjoyed by them until 31.03.2023 was
taken away by the Government, as per the aforesaid
amendment. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners in
such circumstances, challenging the Constitutional validity of
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 13
such amendment, on the ground that the said amended
provision is ultra vires of the Constitution, in view of the fact
that the same creates an unreasonable classification and thus
violative of the mandate contemplated under Art.14 of the
Constitution of India.
3. A counter affidavit was submitted by the Government
opposing the reliefs sought and justifying the amendment.
4. I have heard Sri. H. Ramanan, the learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt. Deepa K.R., the learned Special
Government Pleader for the State.
5. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the exclusion of unaided schools from the
purview of exemption of tax, while retaining the exemption to
the schools owned, managed and aided by the Government, is
amounting to unreasonable classification and, thus, violates the
principles of equality before law, as contemplated under Art.14
of the Constitution of India. The specific case of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that, the Government did not
provide any specific reasons, for excluding the unaided schools
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 14
from the purview of exemption and there is no intelligible
differentia in classifying the unaided schools on one part and
the Government owned, managed and Government aided school
on the other part. The learned counsel places reliance upon
various decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court,
including, State of Punjab & Others v. Davinder Singh and
Others [(2025)1 SCC 1], Aashirwad Films v. Union of
India & Others [(2007) 6 SCC 624], State of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr. v. Nalla Raja Reddy & Others [AIR 1967
SC 1458] and Deepak Sibal & Another v. Punjab
University & Another [(1989)2 SCC 145].
6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government
Pleader opposes the said contention by pointing out that, the
reason for exempting the Government owned, managed and
aided schools from payment of building tax is in view of the fact
that, the infrastructure and the maintenance of such schools are
provided at the expense of the State and, therefore, a further
levy of tax upon such buildings would create an additional
burden upon them. The said reason is sufficient to satisfy the
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 15
requirement of intelligible differentia for the purpose of creating
a classification between Government owned, managed and
aided schools and the unaided schools. The learned Government
Pleader also brought to the attention of this Court, the decision
rendered by another Single Bench of this Court in the
Manager, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College v. State of
Kerala [WP(C)No.18185/2019] and connected cases where
the challenge of the very same provisions were repelled when
made at the instance of self-financing colleges.
7. Besides, the learned Government Pleader also relied on the
decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Garg v.
Union of India and Others [(1981)4 SCC 675], where, the
parameters to be considered while considering the challenge
against Constitutional validity of a statute alleging unreasonable
classification, particularly against a taxing statute were laid down.
8. It is well settled that, as far as a challenge raised against
the constitutional validity of a statutory provision is concerned,
the grounds on which such challenge could be raised are (i) the
enactment was beyond the legislative competence of the
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 16
Government and (ii) the provision under challenge violates any
of the Articles in Part III of Constitution of India. In this case,
there is no dispute with regard to the competence of the
Government in bringing the amendment of this nature and the
challenge is solely on the ground that, the provision violates
Part III of the Constitution of India; particularly, Art.14.
9. On carefully going through the contentions raised by the
petitioners, one of the main grounds raised is that, the
Government could not provide any justifiable reason to
establish an intelligible differentia in the classification made as
mentioned above. While considering the aforesaid aspect, the
decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
are to be referred to. In Nalla Raja Reddy‘s case (supra) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question of classification
while assessing and collecting land revenue under the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional
assessment) and Cess Revision Act, 1962 (Act 22 of 1962). In
the said case, it was observed that, in order to decide the
challenge against a statutory provision, two tests are mentioned
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 17
to ascertain whether a classification is permissible or not viz.,
(i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible
differential which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that
the differential must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question. It was in this
context, the contentions raised by the petitioners are to be
considered.
10. To understand the matters to be considered when a
challenge is made against a statutory provision on the ground
of unreasonable classification, it is profitable to refer to the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala
[(1961) 3 SCR 77] and the said observations reads as follows:
“Though a law ex facie appears to treat all that fall within
a class alike, if in effect it operates unevenly on persons
or property similarly situated, it may be said that the law
offends the equality clause. It will then be the duty of the
court to scrutinize the effect of the law carefully to
ascertain its real impact on the persons or property
similarly situated. Conversely, a law may treat persons
who appear to be similarly situated differently, but on
investigation they may be found not to be similarly
situated. To state it differently, it is not the phraseology of
a statute that governs the situation but the effect of the
law that is decisive. If there is equality and uniformity
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 18within each group, the law will not be condemned as
discriminative, though due to some fortuitous
circumstances arising out of a peculiar situation some
included in a class get an advantage over others, so long
as they are not singled out for special treatment. Taxation
law is not an exception to this doctrine…. But in the
application of the principles, the courts, in view of the
inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse
elements, permit a larger discretion to the Legislature in
the matter of classification, so long it adheres to the
fundamental principles underlying the said doctrine. The
power of the Legislature to classify is of ‘wide range and
flexibility’ so that it can adjust its system of taxation in all
proper and reasonable ways.”.
11. In Aashirwad Films‘s case (supra), it was observed that,
the State undoubtedly enjoys a greater latitude in the matter of
taxing statute. It may impose a tax on a class of people,
whereas, it may not do so in respect of the other class. A taxing
statute, however, as is well known, is not beyond the pale of
challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A taxing
statute, however, enjoys a greater latitude. An inference in
regard to contravention of Article 14 would, however, ordinarily
be drawn if it seeks to impose on the same class of persons or
occupations similarly situated or an instance of taxation which
leads to inequality.
12. Thus, it was observed in the said decision that, the
classification must be reasonable and the extent of reasonability
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 19
of any taxation statute lies in its efficiency to achieve the object
sought to be achieved by the statute. Thus, the classification
must bear a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In
Deepak Sibal’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court
considered the restrictions imposed by the Punjab University in
the matter of admission in the evening classes of the
three year LL.B. Degree Course, where admission was confined
to regular employees of government/semi-government
institutions/affiliated colleges/statutory corporations and
government companies. After referring to large number of
decisions, interference was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
holding that such classification is not reasonable and it is
discriminatory in nature and thus violates Art.14 of the
Constitution of India. It was observed in the said decision that,
if the object of the amendment is illogical, unfair and unjust,
such classification will have to be held as unreasonable.
13. In Davinder Singh‘s case (supra) it was observed
that, for a classification to be reasonable, it will have to be
established that any group or sub group carved out in the larger
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 20
group is significantly different than the larger group and that
the classification has a nexus with the object to be achieved.
14. In these cases, the contention raised by the petitioners
by relying upon the aforesaid observations is that, by
segregating unaided schools from the educational institutions as
a whole, a different class was created, for the purpose of
building tax, which is not at all justifiable. However, the
justification offered by the Government for introducing such a
classification is that, the Government is spending amounts from
the public exchequer to create the infrastructure required for
educational institutions by constructing buildings and other
facilities, spending amounts for maintaining such infrastructure,
by making appointments of teachers and staff, providing salaries
to them etc. Therefore, imposing tax of such buildings, which
are created, maintained and utilized by hiring teachers and staff
after spending amounts from the State funds, would become an
additional burden. Moreover, it was also pointed out that, as far
as the Government owned, managed and aided schools are
concerned, the fees collected from the students is either nil or
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 21
meagre, whereas in the private schools/aided schools, the
services are provided by such schools after collecting fees from
the students. Therefore, it was contended that, that aspect
makes out the case of intelligible differentia which justifies the
classification.
15. After carefully going through the entire aspects, I find
merits in the said submissions made on behalf of the
Government. It is a well settled position that, as far as the
taxing statutes are concerned, the Government has wider
powers and the interference in such statutes could be made by
the courts only in exceptional cases, where, a clear case of
unreasonable classification is made out. In this case, the fact
that the Government owned, managed and aided schools are
established by the Government at their funds in order to
provide education to all classes of persons by collecting nil or
meagre fees, is a crucial factor which distinguishes such
establishments from an unaided school, where fees is collected
from the students for rendering the services. Since imparting
free education or at very low expenses, is one of the primary
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 22
functions of the State, giving incentives to building where such
primary functions are carried out, so as to make it more
feasible, by providing tax exemptions, can only be understood
to be in furtherance of the objects of the enactments. Even in
respect of the property tax, the purpose is to generate funds for
the activities of the Government, but, at the same time, it is
also to be ensured that the obligations of the Government to
provide for welfare of citizens, including the obligation to
provide education to all, are fulfilled without over burdening the
institutions that are instrumental for fulfilling that obligations.
Therefore, the creation of such classification is in tune with the
objectives sought to be achieved by the statute.
16. When coming to the question of intelligible differentia as
mentioned above, the petitioner’s contention is that, by virtue
of the amendment, the educational institutions are treated as
two separate classes based on the ownership as well as the
manner in which such institutions are imparting education.
Going by the statutory provision impugned in this case, the
exemption is contemplated, based on the purpose for which the
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 23
building is used and also the ownership of such building. Even
though the purpose for which such buildings are used is one
and the same, irrespective of the persons/institutions owned,
managed and aided such institutions, the fact that, the manner
in which the institution is rendering services makes out a crucial
distinction. As mentioned above, when the Government owned,
managed aided institutions are providing free education or
education at very low cost, the unaided institutions are
collecting fees from the students for rendering their services.
This itself could be a basis for such classification which would in
clear terms, would come within the purview of intelligible
differentia.
17. In fact this question was considered by this Court in
Vimal Jyothi Engineering College’s case (supra) where after
referring to a large number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on the question of matters to be considered for deciding
the classification, the validity of such provision was upheld. In
the said decision, yet another decision rendered by a learned
Single Bench of this Court in Sreenarayana Gurukulam
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 24
College of Engineering, Kolenchery v. State of Kerala and
Another [2016(4) KHC 482] was followed where the
following observations were made:
“8. In the instant case whether the buildings and hostels
for the purpose of education and stay owned or financed
by the Government and owned by the private management
of Self-financing Educational Institutions can be treated
alike. Whether there is any intelligible differentia which
distinguishes the buildings owned by the Government and
owned by private management of self-financing
institutions. The matter in issue involved in the instant
case falls exclusively in the domain of taxation and has no
connection with the academic affairs. Therefore, the extent
of enquiry is confined to the fiscal status of institutions
only. What is the basis of the classification? In my view,
this classification is made, by granting exemption to the
building owned or financed by the Government, on the
basis that public money is utilised for the construction and
maintenance of such buildings; whereas in the case of the
buildings and hostels owned and maintained by private
management of self-financing institutions, the public
money has not been involved. Put it differently, this
exemption is a privilege granted to the public money and it
can be said that buildings and hostels constructed and
maintained by using public money is exempted from
payment of property tax and the people, as a whole, is the
beneficiary of this exemption. If property tax is imposed on
buildings and hostels owned by the Government, that
amount also will be taken from the public fund. More
importantly, exemption is given to the institutions,
functioning under the administrative control of the
Government and to which Governmental auditing of funds
and expenditure is made compulsory, whereas, the case of
self-financing institutions, such control and auditing of
funds are absent.
9.Secondly the exemption ‘self-financing’ itself shows that
such institutions are having their own fee structure, which
cannot be compared with fees of a Government College.
Though, it is regulated and controlled by the above
referred Statute, it is much higher than that of
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 25Government Colleges, wherein a nominal fee alone is
collected from the students and certain rooms are reserved
for students from socially and economically backward
classes, in the hostels owned by the Government. In my
view, this classification on the aforesaid basis is a rational
one and there is an intelligible differentia in this
classification. Self-financing Educational Institutions form a
separate class, different from the Educational Institutions
owned and financed or aided by the Government and the
discrimination made under Section 207(b) of Panchayat
Raj Act is marked by intelligible differentia.
10. Thirdly, it is the case of the petitioner that, the
petitioner’s institution is also governed and regulated by
the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition
of Capitation Fees, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of
Nonexploitative fee and other measures to ensure equity
and excellence in professional Education) Act, 2006. The
preamble of the above Act says that it is an Act to provide
for prohibition of capitation fee, regulation of admission,
fixation of non-exploitative fee, allotment of seats to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other socially and
economically backward classes and other measures to
ensure equity and excellence in professional education and
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The
said Act is a preventive legislation to curb illegality and
exploitation in the functioning of the self-financing
institutions. Merely on the reason that the receipt of
capitation fee is prohibited and the admission and fixation
of fee are regulated, it cannot be said that the self-
financing colleges are owned or administered by the
Government and the financial transactions are subjected to
governmental scrutiny. So, such institutions are not
entitled to get the privilege of the institution owned and
administered by the Government. The petitioner institution
is not the creation of a Statute; but the functioning of the
institute alone is regulated by several Statutes, covering
different field of activity and the Kerala Professional
colleges or institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees,
Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Nonexploitative fee
and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in
professional Education) Act, 2006 is one among various
such Statutes and on that reason the self-financing
Educational Institutions cannot be equated with the
Educational Institutions owned and administered by the
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 26Government, having the privilege under Section 207 of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The concept of ‘sovereign
immunity’ is the basis of this privilege of tax exemption
granted to the institutions owned or aided and
administered by the Government.”
18. I have no reason to take a different view than taken by
this Court in Sreenarayana Gurukulam College of
Engineering, Kolenchery and Vimal Jyothi Engineering
College’s case (supra) and thus I fully concur with the
observations in the said decision.
19. Thus, after carefully going through all the statutory
provisions, the contentions raised, precedents on the point, I find
no reason to interfere with the statutory scheme contemplated
as per the amendment brought to the statutory stipulations
contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Municipality
Act as per the Act of 18 of 2023.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 27
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11697/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF FINANCE ACT 2023
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX DEMAND NOTICE DT 21.02.25
RELATING TO BUILDING NO 2563
EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX DEMAND NOTICE DT 21.02.25
RELATING TO BUILDING NO 2565
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 28
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24150/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES EXTRACTED FROM THE
KERALA FINANCE ACT 2023 EVIDENCING THE SAID
AMENDMENTS
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.06.2023
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 29
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34856/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.12.2019 IN
W.P.(C) NO.33060/2019 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES EXTRACTED FROM THE
KERALA FINANCE ACT, 2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMANT NOTICE OF PROPERTY TAX
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2013-14 TO
2023-24 DATED 22.08.2023 RELATING TO THE BUILDING NO.29
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE OF PROPERTY TAX
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2013-14 TO
2023-24 DATED 22.08.2023 RELATING TO THE BUILDING NO.230
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMANT NOTICE DATED 22.08.2023 FOR
THE YEARS 2013-14 TO 2023-24 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS.
229,230,231 (2 NOS), 232 AND 233 OF THE PETITIONERS
SCHOOLS ALONG WITH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMANT NOTICE DATED 22.08.2023 FOR
THE YEARS 2013-14 TO 2023-24 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS.
229,230,231 (2 NOS), 232 AND 233 OF THE PETITIONERS
SCHOOLS ALONG WITH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMANT NOTICE DATED 22.08.2023 FOR
THE YEARS 2013-14 TO 2023-24 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS.
229,230,231 (2 NOS), 232 AND 233 OF THE PETITIONERS
SCHOOLS ALONG WITH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMANT NOTICE DATED 22.08.2023 FOR
THE YEARS 2013-14 TO 2023-24 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS.
229,230,231 (2 NOS), 232 AND 233 OF THE PETITIONERS
SCHOOLS ALONG WITH TRANSLATION
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3 TRANSLATION OF R2
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.08.2023 FOR THE
YEAR 2023-24 ALONE RELATING TO BUILDING NO.228 RELYING
ON EXT P2 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 A true copy of the letter from the Don Bosco Society School Manager
Exhibit R2 A true copy of the letter with bearing Number
400509/PTDC01/GPO/2023/5010(1) dated 09/06/2023
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 30
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9941/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES EXTRACTED FROM THE
KERALA FINANCE ACT 2023 EVIDENCING THE AMENDMENTS
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALL DT 15.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 175
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALL DT 15.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 176
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALL DT 15.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 177
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALL DT 15.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 178
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALL DT 15.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 179
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALL DT 15.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 180
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALL DT 15.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 494
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALL DT 15.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 495
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALL DT 15.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 525
2025:KER:57923
WP(C)No.24012 of 2023 & Con.cases 31
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10344/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES EXTRACTED FROM THE
KERALA FINANCE ACT 2023 EVIDENCING THE AMENDMENTS
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, DATED 17.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 327
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, DATED 17.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 328
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, DATED 17.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 566
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, DATED 17.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 609
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, DATED 17.09.23 RELATING TO BUILDING NOS 704