Judgment :- The issue involved in this case is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in KAMARAJ COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, MANAGING BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIRUDHUNAGAR v. PRESIDENT, K.VELLAKULAM PANCHAYAT, MADURAI DISTRICT reported in 2006 (3) MLJ 1068 as confirmed by the Honble Division Bench consisting of K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,JJ. reported in 2008 (1) CTC page 449 (SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST v. THE PRESIDENT, 80, PERUMALPATTU PANCHAYAT UNION). 2. By the impugned order in this writ petition passed by the Government, the first respondent rejects the claim of the petitioner institution to grant exemption from payment of property tax for the buildings of the institution. It is not in dispute that the petitioner institution which is an Engineering College run on self-financing pattern by the trust and the buildings are used for educational purposes. In the light of the same, the petitioner has made a representation claiming exemption from payment of property tax under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. It was as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.29888/2002 filed by the petitioner in the order dated 9. 2003 directing the first respondent to consider the representation. The impugned order came to be passed without assigning any reason. 3. In the judgment reported in 2006 (3) MLJ 1068 stated supra this court has held that on a plain reading of Rule 15C of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat (Assessment and Collection of Taxes) rules, 1999, the dominant object or use of the buildings for educational purposes alone should be considered for granting exemption and nothing more or less is required, since the said rule is in unqualified terms. The Division Bench while confirming the said judgment has held as follows: "In the above circumstances we allow the writ appeals and the writ petitions holding that on a plain reading of Rule 15(c), the dominant object or the use of the building for educational purposes alone decides the claim for exemption and nothing more or less is required. Rule 15(c) is in an unqualified terms. There are no words of restriction attached to the portion dealing with educational purposes. In the above circumstances, we do not agree with the view expressed by Justice P.K. Misra and affirm the view of Justice P. Jyothimani in the decision reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 1068 (KAMARAJ COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, MANAGING BOARD, REP. There are no words of restriction attached to the portion dealing with educational purposes. In the above circumstances, we do not agree with the view expressed by Justice P.K. Misra and affirm the view of Justice P. Jyothimani in the decision reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 1068 (KAMARAJ COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, MANAGING BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIRUDHUNAGAR Vs. PRESIDENT, K.VELLAKULAM PANCHAYAT, MADURAI DISTRICT), as stated in the preceding paragraph. Hence, we set aside the orders impugned herein dated 30.4.2003 thereby allow the writ appeal and the writ petitions. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs." In view of the above said fact since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned order is quashed. No costs.