Judgment The petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University created under the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University Act, 1987. The object of the Act was to provide for instruction and training in the field of medical science, to organise continuing medical education programme and to develop research facilities in the State of Tamil Nadu. Under Section 3(3), the headquarters of the University shall be located within the limits of Madras Metropolitan Planning area, as defined under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The object of the Act is set out in Section 4 of the Act. The statutes have been framed under the said Act in terms of Section 42. At present, the University is situated at No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32. 2. The third respondent herein sent a letter, dated 17. 2006 to the petitioner University, stating that they should furnish certain information regarding area, in which the University building is located. The petitioner, by a communication, dated 9. 2006, gave those particulars with reference to the area of the building in main administrative building, department of Transfusion Medicine and Virtual library, etc. 3. On receipt of the said information, the respondent issued a provisional notice, stating that they are bound to pay property tax and it was worked out to Rs.2,19,850/-. They assessed property tax on the basis that the premises is used by the owner for non residential purpose. Accordingly, a demand notice was issued to the petitioner University, asking them to pay a sum of Rs.3,62,754/-. 4. When they issued several notices of demand, the petitioner University sent a representation, dated 212. 2006, stating that to provide for medical education and various activities, the medical University was set up. An attention of the respondent was also drawn to Section 101(c) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, which reads as follows: "101(c):[buildings used for educational purpose including hostels attached thereto and places used for the charitable purpose] of sheltering the destitute or animals and orphanages, 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;" (emphasis added). 5. Instead of replying to the legal objection raised by the University, the respondent, by a reply dated 12.01.2007 reiterated their contention regarding payment of dues. Once again, the petitioner University sent letters, dated 12. 5. Instead of replying to the legal objection raised by the University, the respondent, by a reply dated 12.01.2007 reiterated their contention regarding payment of dues. Once again, the petitioner University sent letters, dated 12. 2007 and 26. 2007. There was no reply. When there was a further demand notice, the University again sent a reply, dated 19. 2007 and brought to the notice of the respondent Corporation the various activities carried out by them and also the statutory exemption granted under Section 101(c), as referred to above. 6. The Assistant Revenue Officer sent a reply, dated 211. 2007, stating that exemption under Section 101(c) will not apply to the building of the University as it is used for administrative purpose. A reference was also made to the opinion sent by the Government Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 14.09.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner University sent a further letter, dated 212. 2007, reiterating their entitlement to avail statutory exemption provided to them. 7. The respondent Corporation, by a letter, dated 18.02.2008, informed them that since administrative work is going on in the building, and hence exemption from paying property tax cannot be given and therefore, they should pay the dues in accordance with law and a final warrant notice was issued. It is at this stage, the University was forced to approach this court with this writ petition, challenging the action of the respondent Corporation. 8. The writ petition was admitted on 13. 2008 and an interim stay was granted on the very day. Despite notice issued to the Corporation, there has been no counter affidavit filed till date. Today, the matter is posted before this court. The stand taken by the respondent that the premises in New No.69, Old No.40, Anna Salai, Guindy, in which the University and various academic departments are situated, is not eligible for exemption under Section 101(c), is totally a misreading of the provision for exemption. As seen from the exemption provision, it is available when the buildings are used for educational purpose, including hostels attached to the main building, they must be used in connection with the educational purpose. It does not mean only the area in which class rooms and laboratories are situated alone are eligible for exemption. The purpose of exemption was that the educational institutions must enjoy the exemption from the property tax. 9. It does not mean only the area in which class rooms and laboratories are situated alone are eligible for exemption. The purpose of exemption was that the educational institutions must enjoy the exemption from the property tax. 9. In the present case, by 1987 Act of the State Legislature, the petitioner University was established and it has to have premises for running its administration, including meeting hall for Executive Council, Vice Chancellors Office and various offices under the Registrar, without which the educational purpose for which the Act had established the University cannot be served. 10. The respondents action is highly irresponsible and not taking note of the main object of exemption granted by the State legislature in respect of the educational institutions. The attempt of the respondent by indulging in interpreting the section and by giving artificial meaning that only such of those buildings where instructions are given to students alone are exempted and the other administrative buildings are not exempted, clearly shows the sorry state of affairs in the office of the respondent Corporation. Because of their action, the petitioner University had to rush to this court and spent considerable amount of public money. 11. When a similar exercise came for consideration in respect of the educational institutions operating in panchayat area, the Division Bench of this court in a judgment in Sriram Educational Trust rep. by its Chairman Vs. The President, Thiruvallur Taluk & District reported in 2008 (3) MLJ 351 held that the educational institutions (including its whole premises), whether aided or run by the State or run under self financing basis, are eligible for exemption. 12. In the light of the same, this writ petition stands allowed and the impugned notice stands set aside. It is hereby declared that the petitioner University is not liable to pay any property tax in respect of the premises in Old No.40, New No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.