ORDER H.N. Nagamohan Das, J : In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to strike down Rule 3(v) of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Property Tax Rules 2009 insofar as it relates to Category IX and XIII in Table II of Annexure-2 as ultra vires, discriminatory and unconstitutional and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the payment of tax as it was in the year 2008-09 and for other reliefs. 2. Some of the petitioners are in possession and occupation of non-residential buildings carrying on business in hotels with lodging facilities and some of the petitioners are the owners in occupation of kalyana mantaps/mandirs. The respondent Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short 'the BB MP') is a body established under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the KMC Act'). Section 108-A of the KMC Act empowers the BBMP to levy and collect property tax. In furtherance of the KMC Act the respondents have framed the Rules called Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Property Tax Rules 2009 (for short 'the Rules 2009'). As per these Rules the owners of either residential or non-residential properties situated within the limits of BBMP have to pay tax through self assessment return form in terms of the Rules. 3. Petitioners contend that levy of tax under the Rules 2009 has undergone a steady increase of astronomical figures. Further the levy of tax under the present Rules 2009 is uniform through out the city of Bangalore in respect of hotels with lodging facility and kalyana mantaps irrespective of the zones that they are situated. The procedure prescribed under the Rules 2009 is contrary to the mandatory requirement of Section 108-A of the KMC Act. There is no rational in applying the new tariff to the hotels with lodging facilities and kalyana man taps and the same is arbitrary. Therefore the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of Rule 3(v) of the Rules 2009 insofar as it relates to category IX and XIII in Table II of Annexure-2 of the Rules 2009. 4. Sri. Puttige R Ramesh, Sri. Timmegowda, Sri; Rameshchandra and Sri. B.M. Arun learned Advocates advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners. It is contended that the impugned Rules 2009 are in contravention of the mandatory requirement of Section 108-A of the KMC Act. 4. Sri. Puttige R Ramesh, Sri. Timmegowda, Sri; Rameshchandra and Sri. B.M. Arun learned Advocates advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners. It is contended that the impugned Rules 2009 are in contravention of the mandatory requirement of Section 108-A of the KMC Act. Treating all the hotels with lodging facility and kalyan mantaps situated in different parts of the BBMP under a single zone is arbitrary, illegal and invalid in the eye of law. Levying tax on the basis of income derived from the property is outside the legislative competence. Further levy of tax by the respondents retrospectively under the impugned Rules 2009 is illegal and arbitrary. Under the impugned Rules 2009 increase of tax is highly arbitrary and impermissible under law. The depreciation value fixed by the respondents resulted in abnormal increase of property tax. Reliance is placed on number of decisions. 5. Per contra Sri. Indrakumar learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contend that the impugned Rules 2009 are in accordance with law and the same do not call for interference. The impugned Rules 2009 are framed in strict compliance of the mandatory requirement under Section 108-A of the KMC Act. The increase in tax under the impugned Rules 2009 can neither be said arbitrary nor on higher side. After following the procedure and by taking into consideration the relevant factors the impugned Rules are framed and the same is in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on number of decisions. 6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. 7. At this stage it is necessary to extract the enabling provision of Section 108-A of the KMC Act. The relevant provision for the purpose of these writ petitions is as under: "108-A. Levy and calculation of property tax in respect of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this Act, subject to such exemptions provided under this Act and such rules as may be prescribed, the property tax of all buildings or vacant lands or both situated within the city of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike area shall be levied every year in the following manner. (2) The property tax shall be levied by the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike by resolution passed as specified in Section 106 at such percentage not being less than 20 per cent and not more than 25 per cent of the taxable annual value of a building, vacant land or both. The taxable annual value of a building, vacant land or both shall be calculated by multiplying the corresponding "unit area value" with the total built-up area of a building, vacant land or both for ten months, minus depreciation at such rate, as may be prescribed, depending on the age of a building." Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "Unit Area Value" means an average rate of expected returns from the property per sq.ft., per month determined by the Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on the basis of the average market rate determined through mass appraisal method or real estate market information or any other reliable source or combination of these sources that he may considers it as sufficient and reasonable having regard to the location, type of construction of the building, nature of use to which the vacant land or building is put, area of the vacant land, built-up area of the building, age of the building, parking area of vehicles in non-residential building where it is charged and such other criteria as may be prescribed. Different rates may be determined for different area or street by classifying into zones, different nature of use to which the vacant land or building is put and for different class of buildings and vacant lands:" A reading of sub-section (2) of Section 108-A of the KMC Act specifies as under: a. The BBMP shall pass a resolution as specified in Section 106 of the KMC Act; b. The tax levied shall not be less than 20% and not more than 25% of taxable annual value; c. The taxable annual value being calculated by multiplying the corresponding 'unit area value'; d. The 'unit area value' shall deduct depreciation at such rate depending on the age of the building; The explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 108-A defines 'unit area value' means; a. The average rate of accepted return from the property per sq.ft. per month determined by the Commissioner of BBMP. per month determined by the Commissioner of BBMP. b. The average market rate shall be determined through mass appraisal method or real estate market information or other reliable source or combination of these sources. c. The average market rate shall have regard to location, type of construction, nature of use, age of building and parking area. d. That different rates may be determined for different area or street by classifying into zones. e. Different nature of use and different class of buildings or vacant lands shall be taken into consideration. 8. Keeping in view the mandatory requirement in sub-section (2) of Section 108-A of the KMC Act and the explanation thereto it is necessary to examine Rule 3(v) of the Rules, 2009 insofar as it relates to category IX and XIII in table 2 of Annexure II and they read as under: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Category Description/usage of property Unit Area Value per sft per month IX Irrespective of location (zones), all nonresidential property used as hotels/restaurant which have both boarding and lodging facilities, [other than those falling under category IX], including those building used as serviced apartment or serviced home, guest houses and the like, where the average charges for the occupancy of the room is: See condition (iii) how to calculate average rate per room per day. Subcategory: (i) where the average rate (room tariff) is Rs.2000 or more per day or part thereof whether or not the charges included breakfast/meals/or other facilities. Rs.14.00 (ii) Where the average rate (room tariff) is between Rs.1000 and Rs.1999 per day or part thereof and whether or not the charges included breakfast/meals or other facilities. Rs.10.00 (iii) Where the average rate (room tariff) is Rs.999 and less per day or part thereof and whether or not the charges included breakfast/meals or other facilities. Rs.8.00 Unit Area Value per sft per month Category Kalyana Mantapa, Irrespective of location (zone) and Shadi Mahal, where the built up area including Community Hall, basement, cellar, and all other Convention Hall, covered area as: XIII Party Hall etc., including temporary a b c d e structures let out for marriage, reception, More Between Between Between Up to meetings or for any than 4001 sft 3001 sft 2001 sft 2000 function/exhibition 5001 & 5000 & 4000 but less sft and not being a hotel sft sft sft than or a restaurant 3000 sft Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.50 9. A reading of the above Rules specifies that there is increase in tax ranging from 300% to 600%. Irrespective of the zone, location and nature of use of building uniform tax is levied. Further the levy of tax is based on the size of the building and vacant land ignoring all other criteria specified in sub-rule (2) and the explanation to Section 108-A of the KMC Act. It is seen from the Rules that in respect of other non-residential building other than hotels with lodging facility and kalyana mantaps the tax is levied on zonal classification. It also further specifies that the levy of tax is also based on self-occupation or tenanted. Therefore the impugned Rules are not only contrary to the enabling provisions of Section 108-A of the Act but the same is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. In identical circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Baji K Kutty, AIR 1969 SC 378 held as under: "5. But in enacting the Kerala Buildings Tax Act no attempt at any rational classification is made by the Legislature. As already observed, the Legislature has not taken into consideration in imposing tax the class to which a building belongs the nature of construction, the purpose for which it is used, its situation, its capacity for profitable user and other relevant circumstances which have a bearing on matters of taxation. They have adopted merely the floor area of the building as the basis of tax irrespective of all other considerations. Where objects, persons or transactions essentially dissimilar are treated by the imposition of a uniform tax discrimination may result for in our view refusal to make a rational classification may itself in some cases operate as denial of equality. This Court in a recent judgment has decided that levy of tax in exercise of the power under Entry 49, List II of the Seventh Schedule in respect of factory buildings in a municipal area based on floor area was illegal. New Manek Chowk Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad, (1967) 2 SCR 679 = ( AIR 1967 SC 1801 ). New Manek Chowk Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad, (1967) 2 SCR 679 = ( AIR 1967 SC 1801 ). The Court held in that case that the method of adopting a flat rate for a floor area for determining the annual value adopted by the Corporation of Ahmedabad in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 49 of 1949 was against the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder as well as all recognised principles of valuation for the purpose of taxation. If levy of tax in a municipal district based on floor area in respect of a factory building violates Article 14 of the Constitution when the tax is sought to be levied by the Municipal Corporation, we see no reason to uphold the tax imposed under the impugned Act when the State in exercise of legislative authority conferred by Entry 49, List II Sch. VII, imposes liability to tax buildings solely on floor area. The vice of the Act in the present case is more pronounced than it was in New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Case, (1967) 2 SCR 679 = ( AIR 1967 SC 1801 ); in that case the Rules under which the tax was sought to be levied on the basis of floor area were restricted in their operation to factory buildings within the Corporation limits of Ahmedabad, whereas Act 19 of 1961 which is challenged in the present case applies to the whole Sate of Kerala in respect of buildings completed on or after March 2, 1961, whatever may be the nature or class of the building, the use of which it is put, materials used in its construction and the extent of profitable user to which the building may be put, its cost and its economic rental. It is unnecessary in the circumstances to consider whether imposition of a tax only on buildings constructed after March 2, 1961 and exempting buildings completed before that date may not violate Article 14 of the Constitution." (Underlining is by me) 11. The Supreme Court in the case of General Officer Commanding In-Chief and another Vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and another, AIR 1988 SC 876 held as under: "14. This contention is unsound. The Supreme Court in the case of General Officer Commanding In-Chief and another Vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and another, AIR 1988 SC 876 held as under: "14. This contention is unsound. It is well settled that rules framed under the provisions of a statute form part of the statute. In other words, rules have statutory force. But before a rule can have the effect of a statutory provision, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) it must conform to the provisions of the statute under which it is framed; and (2) it must also come within the scope and purview of the rule making of the authority framing the rule. If either of these two conditions is not fulfilled, the rule so framed would be void: 12. In the instant case Section 108-A(2) of the KMC Act specifies that the tax levied shall not be less than 20% and more than 25% of taxable annual value. The annual value shall be calculated by multiplying the corresponding unit area value. The unit area value means the average rate of accepted return from the property. The average rate shall have regard to location, type of construction, nature of use, age of the building, parking areas, class of building etc. In the instant case the impugned Rules are framed without regard to any of the above factors mentioned in the Act. While framing the impugned Rules the respondents have not taken into consideration the class to which the building belongs, the nature of construction, its location, its capacity for profitable use and other relevant circumstances for levying taxes. Therefore the impugned Rules are contrary to the KMC Act and on this ground they are liable to be quashed. 12. For the reasons stated above, the following; ORDER i. Writ petitions are hereby allowed. ii. The impugned Rule 3(v) of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Property Tax Rules 2009 insofar as it relates to Category IX and XIII in Table II of Annexure-2 are hereby quashed. iii. The respondents to frame the new Rules keeping in view the mandatory requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 108A of the KMC Act iv. Ordered accordingly.