Order Petitioners in these cases have prayed for quashing the order of the Administrator, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation dated 22.2.1997 in case nos. 335, 336 and 337 of 1996-97, whereby he refused to recommend their claim before the State Government for exemption from payment of holding taxes as per the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), applicable to the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation. 2. Petitioner no.1 (Bettiah Holy Cross Sisters Society) is a charitable society (hereinafter to be called 'the Society'), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Main object of the Society, as would appear from the memorandum of Association is to promote welfare of mankind by performing works of charity, to instruct and educate youth in schools and orphanages and to care generally poor, the sick and the orphans in homes and hospitals. 3. The claim is since the activity of the petitioners to run schools etc. is carried out without any object of earning profit and as a matter of fact, only for advancement of charitable purposes, it would not be open to the respondents to reject their claim for grant of exemption as provided under Section 124(3) of the Act. It was pointed out that even the Income Tax authorities having examined the show cause of the petitioners under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act granted exemption from payment of taxes, as required under Section 11 of the Act since aims and object of the institution in question was declared charitable to promote educational purposes. 4. It appears the matter was brought to this Court previously on different occasions and ultimately by the impugned order the learned Administrator granted exemption under Section 124(2) of the Act to the institution from payment of Holding taxes for the holdings which are being used for residential purposes of Nun's and Sisters. But however, the prayer of the petitioner for a recommendation before the State Government under Section 124(3) of the Act to grant exemption of Holding Taxes in favour of the educational institutions was rejected on the ground that such institutions are charging fees from the students, who are studying in the schools. 5. In my view before adverting to respective submissions, advanced at the bar it will be apt to refer the relevant provisions of the Act. 5. In my view before adverting to respective submissions, advanced at the bar it will be apt to refer the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 123 of the Act empowers the Corporation to impose taxes on the Holdings under different heads. Section 124 qualifies certain restrictions on imposition of the taxes on Holdings. As Sub-section (2) & (3) of Section 124 of the Act are relevant for the purpose of consideration in this case, they are quoted hereunder : "124(2) - Any holding which is used exclusively as a place of public workship of religious assemblage, as a dharmasala, math, imambara, khankha or as a mortuary, or which is duly registered as a public burial or burning ground under this Act shall be ex-empted from the tax on holdings. 124(3) - The State Government may, on the recommendation of the Corporation, exempt any holding or part of a holding which is used for any charitable or religious purpose." 6. It would appear from Sub-section (2) that if a holding which is exclusively used for worship, religious and charitable purposes etc. including Dharmshala, Math, shall be exempted from payment of holding taxes. Sub-section (3) provides that the State Government may on the recommendation of the Corporation exempt any holding or part thereof which is used for any charitable or religious purposes, from payment of tax. Claim of the petitioners is that the main object of the institution is to provide education for charitable purposes and not with a view to earn motive. Therefore respondents Administrator should have recommended such case before the State Government for grant of exemption under Sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act. In this regard it would also be relevant to notice that as per Section 4(k) "charitable purpose" includes the maintenance of an educational institutions and the hostels attached thereto, which, though wholly or partly self-supporting, are maintained without the purpose of profit. 7. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would mean that in order to grant exemption to a charitable institution under Section 124(3) one must not involve in carrying on any activity for profit occurring at the end of definition of 'charitable purposes' under Sec. 4(k) of the Act. 8. 7. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would mean that in order to grant exemption to a charitable institution under Section 124(3) one must not involve in carrying on any activity for profit occurring at the end of definition of 'charitable purposes' under Sec. 4(k) of the Act. 8. On behalf of the respondents though counter affidavits have been filed but no material was brought on record to show that these educational institutions are being run with a view to earn profit save and except the finding of the learned Administrator that fees are realised from the students of the schools. Therefore, in my view, where the predominant object of the activity is to carry out a charitable purpose and not with a view to earn motive, it would not loose its character of a "charitable purpose" merely because some fees are realised from the students. References in this regard can also be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Gujrat vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Association, Surat, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 387 where it was held as follows : "What is necessary to be considered is whether having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the dominant object of the activity is profit-making or carrying out a• charitable purpose. If it is the former, the purpose would not be a charitable purpose, but, if it is the latter, the charitable character of the purpose would not be lost." 9. I, therefore, having regard to the facts, noticed above, set aside that part of the order of the impugned order, whereby, the learned Administrator has refused to recommend the case of the petitioners for exemption and accordingly direct the State Government to consider the claim of the petitioners for exemption, as required under Section 124(3) of the Act. With the aforesaid, these writ applications are thus, disposed of.