Madras High Court
Asha Nivas Social Service Centre vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 21.11.2024
Pronounced On .01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.6122 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.21900 of 2021
W.P.No.5182 of 2020
Asha Nivas Social Service Centre,
Registered Society No.146/1976,
Represented by its President
Rev.Dr.Kuraian Thomas,
No.9, Rutland Gate,
5th Street, Chennai – 600 006. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration
& Water Supply,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/21
W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021
3.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central),
Greater Chennai Corporation,
36B, Pulla Avenue,
Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.
4.The Revenue Officer,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
5.The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Zone-VIII, Greater Chennai Corporation,
36B, Pulla Avenue,
Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 010. ... Respondents
W.P.No.20635 of 2021
Asha Nivas Social Service Centre,
Registered Society No.146/1976,
Represented by its President
Rev.Dr.Kuraian Thomas,
No.9, Rutland Gate,
5th Street, Chennai – 600 006. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration
& Water Supply,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintradripet, Chennai – 600 002.
3.The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/21
W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021
Greenways Road,
Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 028.
4.The Senior Accounts Officer,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
New Area 08 Office,
227, II Avenue,
Near 12th Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.5182 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the 3rd
respondent in Z.O.8.R.D.C.No.Assr.106/2431/2019, wherein Exemption under
Section 101(b) of the Chennai Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 was refused to
the petitioner/society, quash the same, and direct the respondents to grant full
exemption to the petitioner's Asha Nivas Working Women's Hostel situate at
No.12, Old No.35, Railway Colony, 3rd Street, Railway Colony, Aminjikarai,
Chennai – 600 029, under Section 101(b) of the Chennai Municipal Corporation
Act, 1919.
Prayer in W.P.No.20635 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating
to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 03.08.2021 bearing Old CMC
No.05/073/1441/000001-03/106/03274/000 issued by the Chennai Metropolitan
Water Supply and Sewerage Board namely the respondents demanding
Rs.9,49,708/- from the Petitioner/Society, quash the same.
In W.P.No.5182 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar
for Mr.R.Ravichandar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/21
W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021
For Respondents :
For R1 : Mr.P.Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader
For R2 to R5 : Mr.A.S.Ragul Adhithya
for Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi
In W.P.No.20635 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar
for Mr.R.Ravichandar
For Respondents :
For R1 : Mr.P.Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader
For R2 to R4 : Mr.N.Paul Sunder Singh
COMMON ORDER
By this Common Order, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of.
2. In W.P.No.5182 of 2020, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order in Z.O.8.R.D.C.No.Assr.106/2431/2019 dated 04.12.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent namely the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.
3. By the Impugned Order dated 04.12.2019, the 3rd respondent in the said Writ Petition has rejected the request of the petitioner for exemption from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 payment of property tax under Section 101(b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
4. The aforesaid Impugned Order has been passed pursuant to an earlier Order passed by this Court on 19.08.2016 in W.P.No.26341 of 2011.
5. The said Writ Petition was earlier filed by the petitioner herein. The Court after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, had observed as under in its order dated 19.08.2016:-
“6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side and perusing the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner seeks for exemption from the provisions of the Act and they seek to bring the nature of the activities within the ambit of anyone of the clauses mentioned in section 101 of the CCMC Act, then they should make a specific request/application in that regard. If such application is filed, then the respondent Corporation can examine as regards the nature of the activities done by the petitioner and whether no rent is charged for occupation of the building and if rent is charged whether it is exclusively used for charitable purposes. In fact, after the impugned demand notice was issued, the petitioner has filed their objections / representation, which is also pending consideration before the respondent Corporation.
7. In the light of the above, while directing the respondent Corporation to keep the impugned proceedings in abeyance, there will be a direction to the petitioner to submit an application seeking for exemption in terms of Section 101 of the CCMC Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and along with the application, the petitioner also should enclose all the relevant materials to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 justify their claim. On receipt of such application, the respondent Corporation shall nominate the Senior Officer for inspection of the premises which should be done after notice to the petitioner. On completion of inspection, a report be submitted to the Commissioner and after hearing the petitioner in person, the respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision in the application for grant of exemption. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date on which the application for exemption is made in terms of the above directions.
8. In fine, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.
M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.”
6. In W.P.No.20635 of 2021, the same petitioner has challenged the Impugned Demand Notice bearing Ref.CMC.No.05/073/1441/000001- 08/106/03274/000 dated 03.08.2021 issued by the respondents Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), demanding taxes and charges from the petitioner for the period between 1st half of 2018 and 1st half of 2021 amounting to a sum of Rs.9,49,708/-.
7. The challenge to the respective demands both under the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1978) arise primarily on account of the claim of the petitioner for exemption under Section 101(b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021
8. If the claim of the petitioner for exemption under Section 101(b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 is accepted, the petitioner would also be exempt from payment of water tax as well.
9. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a Working Women Hostel namely Asha Nivas Social Service Centre for the benefit of poor and downtrodden women.
10. It is further case of the petitioner that the Ministry of Human Resource Development had sanctioned a financial assistance of Rs.30,37,500/- to the petitioner for construction of the above hostel on 30.03.1995 and that only a nominal rent is collected from the working women at a subsidized rates.
11. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is entitled for exemption from property tax in terms of Section 101(b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. It is submitted that denial of exemption by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.5182 of 2020 is liable to be interfered with.
12. Opposing the prayer, the learned Special Government Pleader for the 1st respondent in the respective writ petitions would submit that the petitioner is not running a “Choultry” for occupation on which either no rent is collected or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 the rent that was collected is used for charitable purposes and therefore the benefit of exemption has been rightly denied to the petitioner.
13. That apart, it is submitted that the Working Women Hostel run by the petitioner in the name of Asha Nivas Social Service Centre is not a “Choultry” within the meaning of Section 101(b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and therefore the exemption has been rightly denied.
14. It is further submitted that the Impugned Order of the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.5182 of 2020 has clearly delineated what is the meaning of expression “Choultry”. In the Impugned Order, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sasthi Keot Vs. State of Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 521 was also referred to interpret the meaning of “Choultries”.
15. It is submitted that this Court in Pandarasannadhi, Tiruvannamalai Adhinam by Trustee Sri Deivasigamani Ponnambala Desikar Vs. The Corporation of Madras, AIR 1941 Mad 909 : 1941 (2) MLJ 544 : 1941 (54) LW 720 has already concluded as to the scope of exemption under Section 101(b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and it has been held as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 “In order to claim exemption under S. 101(b) as amended, the first condition to be satisfied is that the buildings must be choultries. If they are not choultries, then they are not entitled to exemption. A choultry is a well known expression involving the idea that the building called a choultry affords a resting place for travellers. Unless, therefore, the building affords accommodation for travellers, it is not a choultry and unless it is a choultry, S. 101(b) has no application even though the rent derived from the building is used exclusively for charitable purposes. A choultry is no doubt a charitable trust. If for the purpose of running that choultry, there are other buildings which are not used as rest houses but which are used exclusively, say, for running a business, the building in which the business is being run is not a choultry, even though the rent derived from it is used for the maintenance of the choultry. The choultry may be run in one building and in another locality there may be other buildings which are not at all used as rest houses for pilgrims and which are let out to tenants for occupation or to shopkeepers for use as shops and the rents derived from them may be used exclusively for running the choultry. In such a case the building which is used as a rest house for travellers will alone be exempted and not the other buildings the rent of which is being used for the running of the choultry; if the buildings themselves are not used as rest houses, which is the central idea underlying the expression ‘choultry’, they are not exempt from payment of tax.
16. It is therefore submitted that there is no merits in the challenge to the Impugned Order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent.
17. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for the 1st respondent in both the writ petitions, learned counsel for the 2nd to 5th respondents in W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and the learned counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in W.P.No.20635 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 of 2021.
18. The law relating to exemption has to be construed strictly. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also often made reference/followed the decision of the Kings Bench in Cape Brandy Syndicate Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners, (1921) 1 K.B.64 [Rowlatt, J.] wherein, the Court held that in taxing matters nothing is to be intended but clear meaning to the words have to be applied.
19. Relevant passage from the aforesaid decision of the Kings Bench in Cape Brandy Syndicate case (cited supra), is reproduced below:-
“The construction contended for on behalf of the respondents involves taking the statutory percentage on the average amount of capital as being the pre-war standard of profits although there is nothing pre-war about the trade or business. Para. 4 provides a method of quantifying the profits of a trade or business having both a pre-war and post-war existence, which it would be difficult to quantify in the ordinary way. The respondents' contention involves an extremely artificial construction of the words and imports into the expression “pre-war standard” something having no connection with anything to which the term “pre-war” can properly be employed. It is urged by Sir William Finlay that in a taxing Act clear words are necessary in order to tax the subject. Too wide and fanciful a construction is often sought to be given to that maxim, which does not mean that words are to be unduly restricted against the Crown, or that there is to be any discrimination against the Crown in those Acts. It simply means that in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used.”
20. Section 101(b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 reads as under:-
“101. General exemptions:-
The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from the property tax:
(a) ....
(b) choultries for the occupation of which no rent is charges and choultries the rent charges for the occupation of which is used exclusively for charitable purposes.”
21. Although exemption has been given to “Choultries” for the occupation of which no rent is charged and the rent charged for the occupation of which is used exclusively for “charitable purposes”, the expression “Choultry” or “Choultries” has not been defined in the Act.
22. In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, “Choultry” is described as an Anglo-Indian word “being corruption of Telugu “chawad”” and its meaning is given as “A caravaserai”. In Wilson's Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms, 2nd edition, Page No.108, the word is given in different forms such as, “Chawati” or “Chauti”. Typically, “Choultry” is a public lodging place, a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 shelter for travellers as cited in Cherupushpam Hospital Trust, Palai Vs. Pala Municipality, AIR 2005 Ker 178, 180, Para 9.
23. In Wilson's Glossary, page 108, it is stated that the word chavadi becomes choultry when corrupted and that choultry means a public lodging place, a shelter for travellers. In the same book at p. 104 the word 'chatram' which is the vernacular corruption of the Sanskrit Sathram is explained as a place where refreshment is given gratuitously, especially to Brahmins. The same distinction between a resting place for travellers and a place where refreshment is given is also mentioned in Maclean's Manual where at p. 160 choultry is stated to be a corruption of the word chavadi and is explained as a hall used by travellers as a resting place and also intended as a place for the transaction of public business as in the expression village chavadi. And at p. 188 chatram is explained as a corruption of the Sanskrit Sathram and as a house where pilgrims and travelling members of the higher caste are entertained and fed gratuitously for a day or two and as charitable foundations for the lodging and entertainment of a certain number of guests for a specified time.
24. Similarly, this Court in Kothandarama Pillai and another Vs. Municipal Council, Trichinopoly, AIR 1933 Mad 782, held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 “3. There are other clauses which it is not now material to refer to. Two points were discussed in the Lower Court : (1) whether the premises are a choultry within the meaning of the section, and (2) if so, whether it satisfies the condition which according to the respondent must be satisfied by all the kinds of buildings and lands mentioned in the clause, namely, that no income shall be derived therefrom. The learned Judge has held that the place is not a choultry within the meaning of the section. He has so held on a consideration of Ex. I, which is the deed by which the premises in question were dedicated to charity in 1888 by the owner, Kothandarama Pillai, and his wife, Manonmani Ammal. The question is, whether that dedication by its express language or by what necessarily follows from it constitutes the premises a choultry. The deed of settlement as it is called (Ex. I) enumerates in paragraph 4 the purposes for which the charity is founded and the properties dedicated. It begins by saying that the said building, the tank and the other appurtenances are to be known by the name of Tuesday Thannir Pandal Dwadasi Kattalai Dharma Matam. It goes on to say that on Tuesday every week Paradesis that come should be given food. It continues: that every day from Thai to Avani each year kambu grain should be cooked and the said food should be kept in mud pots and allowed to ferment and be mixed with salt and that all who come between 7 A.M. and 6 P.M. without distinction of caste shall be given the food and the fermented water. The deed further says that on every Dwadasi day, i.e., once a fortnight, Brahmins should be given food as funds permit. The tank is to be used by all castes among the Hindus except the Pallas and Pariahs for bathing and drinking, and the flowers that are to be got by the maintenance of a flower garden and the leaves of the holy Vilvam and Tholasi are to be used for worship by Brahmins, Saivas, etc. The paragraph winds up by saying that the above building and the appurtenances have been built for these purposes. The question is whether the building and lands appurtenant thereto dedicated to charity of the above description are a choultry within the meaning of that word in the District Municipalities Act. It would be observed that all the purposes mentioned are the giving of food and drink freely. Paradesis, literally people of other places means those who have no fixed abode and go from place to place having https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 given up any lucrative occupation (it is to be presumed in search of a higher life) are to be fed every Tuesday. All who come without distinction of caste are to be given kambu food and the fermented water of the food throughout the six months, Thai to Avani, and Brahmins are to be fed on the Dwadasi day, i.e., once a fortnight. The essential idea running through the foundation is that of free gift of food and drink. The premises are intended for being used to carry out this purpose. The respondents' contention which the learned Judge accepted is that a place intended for free feeding however charitable it might be is not a choultry but a chatram. In Wilson's Glossary, page 108, it is stated that the word chavadi becomes choultry when corrupted and that choultry means a public lodging place, a shelter for travellers. In the same book at p. 104 the word 'chatram' which is the vernacular corruption of the Sanskrit Sathram is explained as a place where refreshment is given gratuitously, especially to Brahmins. The same distinction between a resting place for travellers and a place where refreshment is given is also mentioned in Maclean's Manual where at p. 160 choultry is stated to be a corruption of the word chavadi and is explained as a hall used by travellers as a resting place and also intended as a place for the transaction of public business as in the expression village chavadi. And at p. 188 chatram is explained as a corruption of the Sanskrit Sathram and as a house where pilgrims and travelling members of the higher caste are entertained and fed gratuitously for a day or two and as charitable foundations for the lodging and entertainment of a certain number of guests for a specified time. This distinction between the two words is confirmed by popular use, although it is not uncommon when language is loosely used for the two words to be indiscriminately used to describe the same premises. The appellants' advocate has thus drawn my attention to Venkatachala Pillai v. The Taluk Board, Saidapet (1911) I.L.R. 34 Mad. 375 : 21 M.L.J. 305 where at page 381 the institution then in question which was undoubtedly a feeding place is described as a choultry. But this is more or less inaccurate because unintentional use of the words cannot, I think, be used to control the interpretation of the section which must be read in the sense in which the words are accepted by appropriate authority. That being so, I am unable to say that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 learned Judge's decision is not justified. There is no provision as far as I can see in the deed of foundation for any provision for a resting place for any one. It is natural that those who come to take their food may have to wait some time before it is given to them and afterwards may linger before they go away. But that will not convert the foundation into one intended as a shelter for travellers and in my opinion the trustees would be justified in requiring that those who come to receive their food should not stay in the premises and take shelter there. It is noteworthy that the whole feeding contemplated in the deed is to take place during the day-time. Dwadasi feeding of Brahmins is always in the morning. The poor feeding is expressly required to be over by 6 P.M. and at night the building is to be kept lit but not for the reception of any travellers. This being so, the only conclusion I can come to is that although the premises are undoubtedly a charity they do not fall within the category of charities which are exempted by the District Municipalities Act, viz., choultries. It may be that in particular cases the same place is intended to be used both as a choultry and as a chatram. Where such is the case, such premises would undoubtedly to the extent to which they are choultries come within the exception to Section 83(a). But that is not the case here. I think the decision on this point of the learned Judge was right.
4. In this view the contention of the respondent whether even if the place is a choultry it should not also satisfy the condition of no income being derived therefrom does not arise.
As the matter has been argued however I may indicate my view that as I read Clause (a) of Section 83 the only places which require that no income should be derived therefrom in order to be entitled to exemption are the last mentioned of series, namely, playgrounds which are open to the public and from which no income is derived. On this point I have been referred to a decision of Madhavan Nair, J. in The Municipal Council, Trichinopoly v. Venkatarama Iyer (1930) I.L.R. 54 Mad. 495 :
60 M.L.J. 456 in which the learned Judge took a slightly different view and held that the requirement of no income being derived is applicable to libraries also the immediately preceding word. I think that on a proper reading of the clause the words which go together are "buildings used for educational purposes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 and libraries," i.e., buildings used for educational purposes, buildings used for libraries. These occur before playgrounds and are separated therefrom by the word "and" which shows that the qualifying clause of playgrounds is not to be taken over and attached to the previous places but only to playgrounds.
This reading explains and gives effect to all the words of the clause including the "and" before libraries and the "and" after it.
5. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.”
25. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council Vs. Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, AIR 1974 SC 521, held as under:-
“It is not possible to restrict the term “Choultry” in the context of the economic development and improved standard of living of our people, to only that portion of the building which is directly used for lodging of visitors and pilgrims. However, a line will have to be drawn to distinguish between what is incidental or subservient to the main object and purpose of the “Choultry” and the oblique motive of profit-making to deprive the municipality of its rightful dues.”
26. Thus, the word “Choultry” is popularly known as “a shelter for travellers”.
27. Therefore, the benefit that is available to a “Choultry” under Section 101(b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 cannot be applied to the petitioner as the “Working Women Hostel” run by the petitioner is not a “Choultry”. Even if the “Working Women Hostel” is either run free of charges https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 or nominal charges are collected and/or there is a total absence of any motive to make profit, the “Working Women Hostel” run by the petitioner cannot be considered as a “Choultry”. Days have changed. Citizens have more disposable income. Yet choultries may still be functioning even in these modern times as a resting place for pilgrims visiting religious place of importance where temples are situated. Therefore, the benefit of Section 101 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 cannot be extended to the “Working Women Hostel” run by the petitioner.
28. Therefore, W.P.No.5182 of 2020, there is no merits in the challenge to the Impugned Order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent. Thus, W.P.No.5182 of 2020 is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, W.P.No.20635 of 2021 is also liable to be dismissed.
29. At the same time, it is noticed that under Clause c to Section 101 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, “buildings” under for charitable purpose of sheltering the destitute, homes and schools for the “deaf and dumb”, asylum for the aged and “fallen women” and such similar institutions run purely on philanthropic lines as are approved by the council are exempted. The expression “destitute”, fallen women have not been defined. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 Similarly, the expression “fallen women” has also not been defined. Colloquially, the expression “fallen women” means a women who has lost her reputation or has fallen in grace.
30. The “Working Women Hostel” run by the petitioner can be considered on par with buildings used for charitable purpose of sheltering the destitute/home/asylum for fallen women etc., if the petitioner's organization is run purely on philanthropic lines and is approved by the Council.
31. The petitioner may therefore apply for Special Exemption under Section 101(c) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. In case, such application is filed for the above exemption, the Council may examine and consider the case of the petitioner. Section 101(c) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 is similar to Section 87 (cc) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, as in force with effect from 13.04.2023.
32. In the result, W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 are dismissed with the above liberty. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 .01.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes / No arb / jas To:
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.
3.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation, 36B, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.
4.The Revenue Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.
5.The Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone-VIII, Greater Chennai Corporation, 36B, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 010.
6.The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintradripet, Chennai – 600 002.
7.The General Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Greenways Road, Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 028.
8.The Senior Accounts Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, New Area 08 Office, 227, II Avenue, Near 12th Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb / jas Pre-delivery Common Order in W.P.No.5182 of 2010 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/21 W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 .01.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/21