IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22737 of 2009(J)
1. K.K.BUILDERS, A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :25/08/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P(C) No. 22737 OF 2009 J
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
There is a contract between the petitioner and the 1st
respondent. It provides for the petitioner building, operating and
transferring(BOT) a bus stand cum shopping complex as
conceived by the Municipality and to be owned by it on such
transfer. Though a building belonging to a Municipality is
exempted from payment of property tax by virtue of the exemption
contained in section 235(g) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994.,
the Municipality demanded and insisted on payment of tax by the
petitioner. May be that the building would belong to the
Municipality only on a transfer of all rights thereon by the operation
of the BOT agreement. However, as of now, the petitioner has
paid the amount demanded as property tax. The liability to pay
such tax is an issue for decision between the petitioner and the 1st
respondent in as much as the issue for resolution would be as to
whether it is the petitioner or the 1st respondent which has to pay
the amount reckonable as the property tax paid by the petitioner.
WPC.22737/09
: 2 :
Resolution of disputes in terms of all matters touching the contract
is governed by a provision for arbitration, subject to a conciliation,
prescribed as the first time. To invoke that process, the petitioner,
being a party to the agreement, cannot seek a direction in the form
of issuance of a writ order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It has adequate remedy within the frame work of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Recording the aforesaid
facts, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights
of the petitioner to seek relief in terms of that statute, if necessary.
All other issues are left open. It is also clarified that any reference
to facts, made herein is prima facie and only for the purpose of
this case and does not in any manner bind the parties before any
other authority.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. to Judge