IBS Software Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Kerala and Others (WP(C) No. 27151 of 2010)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** ## **PETITIONER/S:** IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 521-524 NILA, TECHNOPARK, TRIVANDRUM-695581, REPRESENTED BY MR. RAMESH BABU,COMPANY SECRETARY, AND VICE-PRESIDENT, LEGAL TAD AND CORPORATE AUDIT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.N.AJITH SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 2 THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM DIST., PIN – 695 001. 3 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKSKERALA (TECHNOPARK) AN AUTONOMOUS BODY OF GOVT. OF, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS TRIVANDRUM-695581. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION N. NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.ANIL THOMAS, SMT.K.V.RASHMI, SC, TECHNOPARK SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, SRI.JUSTIN JACOB, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **2** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 in the name and style 'IBS Software Services Pvt. Ltd.'. The third respondent, Technopark, is an autonomous body established by the Government of Kerala with the objective of creating infrastructure and environment required for setting up high technology electronics manufacturing units etc. 2. On the basis of the discussions between the petitioner and the third respondent, built up spaces in different modules belonging to the Technopark were let out to the petitioner for establishing its business venture. The details of built up area let out to the petitioner on lease described in the writ petition, are given below: |Sl.<br>No.|Particulars of Lease deeds|Area of<br>the<br>building|Building/<br>Module No.|Renewal details| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Ext.P1 lease deed dated<br>19.06.1997 for a period<br>of<br>25<br>years<br>from<br>04.02.1997.|729.74<br>sq.m|Module<br>Nos.521-524|-| |2|Ext.P2 lease deed dated<br>29.10.1998|3926<br>sq.ft|Module<br>Nos.514 &<br>515|Renewed up to<br>31.12.2010 as<br>per Exts.P2(a)<br>and P2(b)| |3|Ext.P3 lease deed dated<br>31.07.1999|5889<br>sq.ft|Nila<br>Building,<br>Module|Renewed up to<br>31.12.2010 as<br>per Exts.P3(a)| **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **3** ||||Nos.511-513|and P3(b)| |---|---|---|---|---| |4|Ext.P4 lease deed dated<br>01.02.2000|9815<br>sq.ft|Nila<br>Building,<br>module<br>No.531-535|Renewed up to<br>31.12.2010, as<br>per Exts.P4(a)<br>and P4(b)| |5|Ext.P5 lease deed dated<br>11.04.2001|23160<br>sq.ft.|First,<br>second and<br>basement<br>floors of<br>Chandragiri<br>building|Renewed up to<br>31.12.2010 as<br>per Exts.P5(a)<br>and P5(b)| |6|Ext.P6 lease deed dated<br>04.10.2000|8000<br>sq.ft.|Nila<br>building in<br>module<br>Nos.541-544|Renewed up to<br>31.12.2010 as<br>per Exts.P6(a)<br>and P6(b)| |7|Ext.P7 lease deed dated<br>29.06.2005<br>up<br>to<br>29.06.2010|10546<br>sq.ft|Nila<br>Building,<br>Module<br>No.GF-01 &<br>GF-02 in|-| |8|Ext.P8 lease deed dated<br>03.04.2008<br>up<br>to<br>30.11.2012|19500<br>sq.ft.|Nila roof<br>top Block<br>Nos.1, 2 &<br>3|-| 3. All the lease deeds contained a common clause, that the lessee shall, from time to time, pay statutory taxes and other levies due to the Government and other local bodies, as required by law. While renewing the original lease deeds, the parties had set their hands together to read the terms and conditions of the original lease deeds to be part of renewed lease deeds. The demand for payment of property tax by the lessee was first raised by the third respondent only in the year 2007. The following table describes the details, such as periods and buildings/modules etc., in respect of which Ext.P9 series of bills were **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **4** raised by the third respondent/lessor demanding property tax : |Sl.<br>No.|Bill<br>Date|Period|Module|Amount<br>(Rs.)|Marked as| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|10/10/07|2000-01/<br>2006-07|Nila 541-544|1,64,243/-|Ext.P9| |2|10/10/07|1999-00/<br>2006-07|Nila 531-535|2,21,226/-|Ext.P9(a)| |3|10/10/07|1999-00/<br>2006-07|Nila 511-513|1,37,484/-|Ext.P9(b)| |4|10/10/07|1999-00/<br>2006-07|Nila 514 - 515|93,712/-|Ext.P9(c)| |5|10/10/07|1999-00/<br>2006-07|Nila 521-524|1,87,418/-|Ext.P9(d)| |6|16/10/07|2005-06/<br>2006-07|Nila GF 01 & 02|57,852/-|Ext.P9(e)| |7|08/10/20<br>07|2002-03/<br>2006-07|Chandragiri|1,64,120/-|Ext.P9(f)| |8|08/10/20<br>07|2002-03/<br>2006-07|Chandragiri|1,94,143/-|Ext.P9(g)| |9|08/10/07|2005-06/<br>2006-07|Chandragiri|1,842/-|Ext.P9(h)| |10|24/07/08|2007-08|Nila 5th floor,<br>GF & Top floor|2,06,306/-|Ext.P9(i)| |11|24/07/08|2007-08|Chandragiri (1st<br>/2nd& Basement)|81,407/-|Ext.P9(j)| |12|11/03/09|2008-09|Nila|2,06,306/-|Ext.P9(k)| |13|18/12/08|2008-09|Chandragiri<br>(1st/2nd<br>&<br>Basement)|81,407/-|Ext.P9(l)| |14|31/03/10|2009-10|Nila|2,06,306/-|Ext.P9(m)| |15|31/03/10|2009-10|Chandragiri<br>(1st/2nd<br>&<br>Basement)|81,407/-|Ext.P9(n)| **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **5** 4. Vide Exts.P10 and P10(a) dated 24.07.2008, the Manager Finance of the petitioner Company was requested to make payment of the arrears of building tax as per the calculation sheet enclosed therewith. Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.04.2010, Ext.P15, the petitioner was informed by the third respondent that, the petitioner Company had not accounted the property tax (Rs.17,97,736/-) and surcharge for the period referred to therein (Rs.1,96,271/-), and the outstanding dues towards rent and other charges as on 31.03.2010 were to the tune of Rs.71,72,052/- and hence, instructed the petitioner to settle the dues at the earliest. Again the request was reiterated by the third respondent vide Ext.P20 communication dated 29.06.2010 for renewal of the lease deeds. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as and when the period of the last renewal of the lease deed expired, the third respondent wanted to incorporate the clause putting liability upon the lessee to pay “Property Tax”, which cannot be fastened on the shoulders of the lessee in view of the provisions of Section 526 of the Kerala **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **6** Municipality Act, 1994 ('the Act', for short). In support of the aforementioned contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Azeez v. Vaikom Municipality [1992(2) KLT 676] and Jayarajan v. Vadakara Nagarasabha [2004(2) KLT 672] . 6. This Court vide order dated 28.10.2010 in I.A.No.14004/2010 ordered to maintain status quo as on that day, which continued. However, when the third respondent was insisting upon payment of the property tax for the purpose of renewal of Ext.P7 lease deed, this Court by keeping the question open with regard to payment of property tax directed the third respondent to execute fresh lease deed on the basis of the old terms and conditions, with the rider that the petitioner/lessee shall continue to pay the rent and other charges, if any in arrear for the period commencing from 29.06.2010. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent countered the aforementioned argument on the ground that the petitioner/lessee had already agreed as per the terms and conditions of the lease deeds to pay the statutory **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **7** taxes and other levies due to the Government and local bodies as required by law. In the counter, the third respondent raised the issue of deferment of rent also. Vide Ext.R3(31) communication dated 14.12.2009, the petitioner was informed that their request for abatement of property tax paid during the period 200809 was not acceptable. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 9. One of the clauses (Clause 10) whereby the lessee had agreed to pay statuary taxes reads as under: “10. The Lessee shall pay all statutory taxes due to Government and other local bodies and is liable to pay water and electricity charges utilised by the Lessee. Maintenance charges for the common area of the TECHNOPARK Campus shall be proportionately shared by the Lessee along with the tenants of the TECHNOPARK Campus. Such charges shall be paid to TECHNOPARK or a Society of TECHNOPARK Units to be formed for the purpose.” Similar clause was entered into in all the original lease deeds and was being made as part and parcel at the time of the renewal. **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **8** 10. The question which arises for adjudication is whether the respondents had taken any steps to seek recovery of the property tax from the petitioner/lessee. 11. Section 237 of the Act deals with property tax, which reads as under: “ 237. Property tax, first charge on property .— The property tax on buildings and lands shall, subject to the prior payment of land revenue, if any, due to the Government thereon, be a first charge upon the said buildings or lands and upon the movable property, if any, found within or upon the same and belonging to the person liable to such tax.” Section 526 of the Act relied upon by the petitioner, reads thus: “ 526. Recovery by occupier of sum leviable from owner .— Where the occupier of any building or land makes on behalf of the owner thereof any payment for which, under this Act, the owner but not the occupier is liable, such occupier shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner or may deduct the same from the rent then or thereafter due by him to the owner.” On perusal of the same, it reveals that if any tax has been paid by the occupier, the occupier is liable to **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **9** seek its refund from the owner or deduct from the future payment of rent. 12. The decision of this Court in Azeez (supra) relied upon by the petitioner pertains to Taxation and Finance Rules under Schedule II of Municipalities Act, whereby by noticing the fact that the tax was not paid by the owner, the Municipality had issued notice to the tenant for payment of property tax under Rule 37. In that decision, there was a discussion of the relevant provisions with regard to payment of tax in paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof, it was observed as under: “3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Municipality can demand tax from the tenant when his landlord failed to pay the same. As per Ext.P11 notice, Municipality informed the petitioners that they are liable to pay the tax as the legal representatives of the Original landlord have failed to pay it. Under Schedule II Rule 37 of the Act there is specific provision making the tenant liable to pay the tax in case it remains unpaid by the landlord. Rule 37 states: If the tax due on account of any building or land remains unpaid in whole or in part at the end of the period specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 32, the commissioner may if the said tax has not remained unpaid for more **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **10** than twelve months require the occupier for the time being of such building or land to pay the amount within a specified period not being less than fifteen days and if the occupier fails to occupy with such requisition, the commissioner may distrain and sell any movable property found on the building or land, and the provisions of the foregoing rule shall, mutatis mutandis apply to all distraints and sales effected under this rule, provided that no occupier shall be liable to prosecution or to a civil suit in respect of any sum recoverable from him under this rule, unless he has wilfully prevented distraint or a sufficient distraint.” The Act has safe-guarded the interest of a tenant who has paid tax when his landlord has failed to pay the same. S.374 postulates that the tenant who has paid the rent on behalf of his landlord can get it adjusted towards the rent due from him to the landlord. In view of the specific provisions in the Act and Rules, contention that the petitioners who are only the tenants of the building are not in any way liable to pay the tax demanded from them cannot be sustained. 4. Contention of the petitioners that if at all they are liable to pay building tax in the event of the default committed by their landlord the Municipality can at best claim only tax for one year is equally **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **11** untenable. The Act does not say so. In the absence of any specific provision that the tenant is liable to pay only tax for one year and not accumulated arrears of tax, the aforesaid contention is only to be rejected. As the tenant is very well given the right to get the amount of tax paid by him to the Municipality from the rent due to the landlord, he is not in any way adversely affected. Section 374 adequately safeguards the interest of the Municipality as well as the tenant.” Since the aforesaid judgment pertains to the previous Act and the Rules, would not have applicability to the facts of this case, as by the time the alleged cause of action accrued amended Act had come into force. 13. In Jayarajan (supra), in which the decision in Azeez (supra) was referred to, provision of Section 235 of the Act pertaining to exemption of the building from payment of property tax was referred. In paragraph No.2 thereof, it was observed as under:- “2. Petitioner in these three cases are tenants. The tenanted premises are put to the use of running educational institutions. Under S.235(1)(d) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **12** exemption from payment of property tax is available only to "buildings recognised by the Government or registered with the Municipality under this Act and owned and occupied by educational institutions and used only for teaching and libraries open to public". There is no dispute that in these cases, the petitioners are tenants and they are paying rent to the respondents landlords. Therefore, the only issue to be decided in these cases, is as to whose liability it is to pay the tax. Shri Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on Ss.237 and 238 of the Act, contends that the liability is of the landlord. Ss.237 and 238 read as follows: " 237. Property tax, first charge on property. - (1) The property tax on buildings and lands shall, subject to the prior payment of land revenue, if any, due to the Government thereon, be a first charge upon the said buildings or lands and upon the movable property, if any, found within or upon the same and belonging to the person liable to such tax.” “ 238. Revision and time of payment of property tax.-- Subject to the rules made by Government the property tax shall be assessed and the half yearly tax determined once in every five years and the half yearly tax shall be payable by the owner of the assessed property within thirty days of the commencement of each half year. Provided that except in the case of **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **13** substantial improvements or addition to an existing building since the last assessment, the annual value of any building shall not exceed the limit, if any, fixed by Government from time to time". However, the question raised by the petitioner herein is not pertaining to exemption of property tax. 14. Similarly situated two tenants had earlier approached this Court in WP(C) No.10743 & 10762/2008 challenging the demand made by TECHNOPARK with regard to the payment of property tax. This Court vide judgment dated 31.03.2008 held that, “petitioners are only exempted from payment of building tax and not property tax, payable either half yearly or annually to the local authority.” 15. In the provisions referred to above, i.e. Sections 237 and 526, nowhere it is specified that the liability to pay property tax is on the owner. In my view raising of the bill or the letter would have to be followed by an action for recovery in a competent court of law, which has so far not been initiated at the instance of the second respondent, where the petitioner would have a right to take all the defences regarding liability of lessor/owner. This Court under **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **14** Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot compel the lessor to execute the lease deed with old terms and conditions. It is open to the lessee, if he is not bound by that condition, not to abide by the same, which would give a cause of action to the lessor on refusal to vacate the premises to take appropriate remedies, in accordance with law. Even for recovery of the property tax, keeping the question open whether it would be the liability of the owner or the occupier, it would not be construed to be by way of a bill or demand. It has to be followed by an action actuated under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provisions of the Specific Relief Act. In view of what has been noticed above, I do not find any justification warranting interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** jg ## **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** ## **15** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** P1 : TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 19.6.1997 P2 : TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 29.10.1998 P2(a) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 18.10.2004 P2(b) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 14.12.2007 P3 : TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 31.7.1999 P3(a) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 18.10.2004 P3(b) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 14.12.2007 P4 : TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 1.2.2000 P4(a) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 18.10.2004 P4(b) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 14.12.2007 P5 : TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 11.4.2001 P5(a) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 22.3.2006 P5(b) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 14.12.2007 P6 : TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 4.9.2000 P6(a) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 4.10.2005 P6(b) : TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL LEASE DEED DATED 14.12.2007 P7 : TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 29.6.2005 P8 : TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED DATED 3.4.2008 P9 TO P9(d) : TRUE COPIES OF BILLS DEMANDING PROPERTY TAX DATED 10.10.2007 **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** ## **16** P9(e) : TRUE COPY OF BILL DEMANDING PROPERTY TAX DATED 16.10.2007 P9(f) TO P9(h) : TRUE COPIES OF BILLS DEMANDING PROPERTY TAX DATED 8.10.2007 P9(i) TO P9(j) : TRUE COPIES OF BILLS DEMANDING PROPERTY TAX DATED 24.7.2008 P9(k) : TRUE COPY OF BILL DEMANDING PROPERTY TAX DATED 11.3.2009 P9(l) : TRUE COPY OF BILL DEMANDING PROPERTY TAX DATED 18.12.2008 P9(m) & P9(n) : TRUE COPIES OF BILLS DEMANDING PROPERTY TAX DATED 31.3.2010 P10 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 2.11.2007 P10(a) : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.7.2008 P11 : TRUE COPY OF GO(Rt) 107/2009/ITD DATED 30.5.2009 P12 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM R3 DATED 4.6.2009 P13 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER TO R3 DATED 2.12.2009 P14 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM R3 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.12.2009 P15 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM R3 DATED 20.4.2010. P16 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.10743/2008 DATED 31.3.2008. P16(a) : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.10762/2008 DATED 31.3.2008. P17 : TRUE COPY OF GO(Rt) 2937/2004/RD DATED 28.7.2004. P18 : TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 13.5.2010. **17** ## **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** P19 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.6.2010. P20 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM R3 DATED 29.6.2010. P21 : TRUE COPY OF DRAFT AGREEMENT SENT BY R3 TO THE APPLICANT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Ext.R3(1), true copy of the lease deed dated 31..7..99 Ext.R3(2), true copy of renewal lease deed dated 18..10..04 Ext.R3(3), true copy of renewal lease deed dated 14..12..07 Ext.R3(4), true copy of the lease deed dated 29..10..98 Ext.R3(5), true copy of renewal lease deed dated 18..10..04 Ext.R3(6), true copy of renewal lease deed dated 14..12..07 Ext.R3(7), true copy of the lease deed dated 4..2..97 Ext.R3(8), true copy of the lease deed dated 3..4..08 Ext.R3(9), true copy of lease deed dated 1..2..2000. Ext.R3(9)a, true copy of renewal lease deed dated 18.10..04 Ext.R3(10), true copy of renewal lease deed dated 14..12.07 Ext.R3(11), true copy of the lease deed dated 29..6..05 Ext.R3(12), true copy of the lease deed dated 4..9..2000 Ext.R3(13), true copy of renewal lease deed dated 14..10.05 Ext.R3(14), true copy of renewal lease deed dated 14.12.07 Ext.R3(15), true copy of the lease deed dated 11..4..01 Ext.R3(16), true copy of renewal lease deed dated 22.3.06 **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **18** Ext.R3(17), true copy of renewal lease deed dtd. 14.12.07 Ext.R3(18), true copy of the Order G.O.(Rt)No. 107/2009/ITD. Dated 30..5..2009. Ext.R3(19), true copy of the letter No.ETPK/FIN/Bill Payment /2009-10/01 dated 4..6..09. Ext.R3(20), true copy of the Letter NO.IBS/Admin/Let/089/ 2009 dated 7..7..2009. Ext.R3(21), true copy of the list of companies who have been selected for granting 50% rent. Ext.R3(22), true copy of the letter No.ETPK/COM-FIN/Dues (Disconnection)/2007-08/0106 dated 27.6.08. Ext.R3(23), true copy of the statement of dues for the month of February, 09. Ext.R3(24), true copy of the statement of dues for the month of March, 2009. Ext.R3(25), true copy of the reply No.IBS/Admin/ Let/ 074/2009 dated 8..6..09. Ext.R3(26), true copy of the Letter No.ETPK/FIN/IBS/200910/01 dated 11..6..09. Ext.R3(27), true copy of the Letter No.ETPK/FIN/IBS/200910/02 dated 14..7..09. Ext.R3(28), true copy of the email dated 7..11..09. Ext.R3(29), true copy of the Notice No.ETPK/COM-FIN/ Dues(Disconnection)/2007-08/196 dated 23..11..09. Ext.R3(30), true copy of the Letter No.IBS/Admin/Let/145 / 09 dated 2..12..2009. Ext.R3(31), true copy of the Letter No.ETPK/FIN/IBS/2009-10 /03 dated 14..12..2009. **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2010** **19** Ext.R3(32), true copy of the agreement dated 30..12..09 Ext.R3(33), true copy of the agreement dated 30..12..09 Ext.R3(34), true copy of the agreement dated 30..12..09 Ext.R3(35), true copy of the agreement dated 30..12..09 Ext.R3(36), true copy of the agreement dated 30..12..09 Ext.R3(37), true copy of the agreement dated 30..12..09 Ext.R3(38), true copy of the agreement dated 30..12..09 Ext.R3[39), true copy of the Order G.O.(Rt)No.2937/2004/RD Dated 28..7..04. Ext.R3(40), true copy of the Letter No.ETPK/FIN/IBS/201011/01 dated 20..4..2010. Ext.R3(41), true copy of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WPCNo. 10762/08 dated 31..3..08. Ext.R3(42), true copy of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WPONo.10743/08 dated 31..3..08. Ext.R3(43), true copy of the Letter No.IBS/Admin/Let/53/2010 dated 13.5.2010 Ext.R3(44), true copy of the Letter No.ETPK/FIN/IBS/201011/02 dated 28..5..2010. Ext.R3(45), true copy of the Letter No.ETPK/FIN/IBS/201011/03 dated 29..6..2010. Ext.R3(46), true copy of the statement showing the details from 1..4..2010 to 5..10..2010.