ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J: The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 10-10-2012 which is impugned at Annexure-G to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent 2 to consider the service charge with effect from 2008 as stated in the objections dated 27-9-2012 marked as Annexure-F. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is an educational and charitable Trust registered under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. In that context, it is contended that under Section 110(1)(a) and 110(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 an exemption has been provided in respect of such recognised institution. Therefore, in that circumstance, when an earlier demand as at Annexure-C was made, the petitioner is stated to have filed objections indicating that they are entitled to the exemption as provided under the Act. Since, the same had not been considered, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. Nos. 36801 to 36807 of 2010. While disposing of the said writ petitions on 10-2-2011, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the reply furnished by the petitioner along with relevant documents in the light of the exemption provided under Section 110 of the Act and thereafter pass orders as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the said exemption. Subsequent thereto, the notice dated 31-8-2012 has been issued and presently the demand vide endorsement dated 10-10-2012 is issued and therefore the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The categorical submission on behalf of the petitioner is that, the objections filed and the exemption claimed has not been considered and disposed of by the respondents and yet the present demand has been made. The learned Counsel for the respondents would however point out that even if such exemption is provided, the service charge of 25% requires to be paid and the present demand made is in respect of service charges and therefore the petitioner cannot have any grievance and the same requires to be paid. 4. Notwithstanding the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents, what is necessary to be noticed is that this Court at the first instance had directed that a decision be taken whether the exemption is admissible in the case of the petitioner. 4. Notwithstanding the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents, what is necessary to be noticed is that this Court at the first instance had directed that a decision be taken whether the exemption is admissible in the case of the petitioner. Even for making any other demand, the respondents should have considered this aspect of the matter and then demand the actual amount due, if according to the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to the exemption or otherwise the service charges was payable. Therefore, when this consideration has not been made by the respondents, the unilateral demand cannot be sustained at this juncture. Since there is already a direction by this Court to consider the objections filed by the petitioner, the demand made vide endorsement dated 10-10-2012 shall not be enforced by the respondents. However, the respondents shall consider the objections already filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date on which the certified copy of this order is available. On considering the objections and granting personal hearing, a speaking order shall be passed and in such event, if any amounts are payable by the petitioner, the respondents would be entitled to demand and recover the same in accordance with law. 5. In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Writ Petitions disposed of.