JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 6.1.14 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 17.10.13 passed by a Bench of this court in D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 2114/05, claiming exemption from the tax payable under the provisions of Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Tax Act, 1964 (for short "the Act"), stands rejected. 2. The relevant facts are that the assessing authority framed the assessment order against the petitioner, a society, registered under the Rajasthan Registration of Societies Act, 1958, for the assessment year 1973-74 to 1980-81, assessed the market value of the property at Rs. 16,09,000/- and determined the tax liability for all these years at Rs. 99,720/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Lands & Buildings Tax Department, Jodhpur, which was allowed vide order dated 31.1.83. Against the order passed by the appellate authority, the assessing authority preferred a revision petition before the Revenue Board, Rajasthan, which was later transferred to Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, who vide order dated 19.4.94, accepted the revision petition ex parte and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner preferred an application before the Divisional Commissioner for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.4.94, which was dismissed on 10.4.95. Thereafter, the assessing authority issued demand notices dated 22.1.96 and 29.3.96 directing the petitioner to discharge the demand created. 3. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an original application before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur ('Taxation Tribunal'), under Section 8 of Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995, questioning the legality of order dated 19.4.94 passed by the Divisional Commissioner. 4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the Taxation Tribunal that the lands and buildings owned by the petitioner are being used for common purpose of the community as also for public purposes and therefore, under Section 6(e) & (f) of the Act, the petitioner is exempt from the payment of tax. The contention raised was negatived by the Taxation Tribunal observing that lands and buildings of the petitioner is separate and distinct from the lands and buildings of Sir Pratap Senior Secondary School. The contention raised was negatived by the Taxation Tribunal observing that lands and buildings of the petitioner is separate and distinct from the lands and buildings of Sir Pratap Senior Secondary School. The Taxation Tribunal observed that Sir Pratap Senior Secondary School is a recognised educational institution and not the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim exemption from payment of tax under the Act. Accordingly, the original application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Taxation Tribunal vide order dated 29.9.97. The petitioner preferred a review petition bearing No. 20/97, before the Taxation Tribunal seeking review of order dated 29.9.97, which was later stood transferred to the files of this court on account of repeal of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 and thereafter, it was considered and dealt with as Review Petition No. 24/99. The review petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 25.4.2000. The order dated 25.4.2000 reads as under: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is not required to be reviewed as no error apparent on the face of record was committed while passing said order. Hence, review petition is dismissed and accordingly it is rejected. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner wants to apply before the competent authority then it may apply within one week from today. On being approached the competent authority shall take the decision in the matter within three months thereof." 5. Pursuant to the observation made by the learned Single Judge of this court as aforesaid, the petitioner made a representation before the assessing authority, which was not decided rather, a demand notice directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 8,28,776/- was issued by the Assistant Director, Lands & Buildings Tax, Jodhpur. On petitioner's failure to deposit the amount, the assessing authority attached the petitioner's bank account at Dena Bank, Jodhpur, which in its turn directed the petitioner to obtain 'No Dues Certificate' from the Department of Lands & Buildings Tax. 6. 8,28,776/- was issued by the Assistant Director, Lands & Buildings Tax, Jodhpur. On petitioner's failure to deposit the amount, the assessing authority attached the petitioner's bank account at Dena Bank, Jodhpur, which in its turn directed the petitioner to obtain 'No Dues Certificate' from the Department of Lands & Buildings Tax. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 2144/05 before this court, questioning the legality of order dated 29.9.97 of the Taxation Tribunal, order dated 25.4.2000 of the learned Single Judge, rejecting the review petition, the demand notice dated 4.1.05 issued by the assessing authority and the communication dated 17.2.05 sent by the Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Jodhpur. 7. On 25.4.05, the writ petition was admitted by a Bench of this court and the operation of the demand notice/order dated 4.1.05 and communication dated 17.2.05 was stayed. Later, the writ petition preferred as aforesaid was disposed of by a Bench of this court vide order dated 17.10.13 with the following observations and directions: "Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the purport of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Review Petition No. 24/1999, in our view, instead of standing on unnecessary ceremonies, the concerned authorities ought to have taken the steps for disposal of the representation and for that matter, the assessing authority itself could have referred the representation to the Division Commissioner for consideration. Be that as it may, in our view, interest of justice shall be served by directing the concerned authority to take an objective decision on the representation of the petitioner within three months from today while continuing with the stay order passed in this petition until disposal of the representation. Accordingly, this writ petition stands finally disposed of with the directions that the representation made by the petitioner shall be forwarded by the assessing authority to the Divisional Commissioner within a week from today and for that matter, if necessary, the petitioner itself may file a fresh representation within a week from today before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner shall take a decision in the matter, objectively and dispassionately, within three months from today. The Divisional Commissioner shall take a decision in the matter, objectively and dispassionately, within three months from today. The interim order passed in this writ petition shall remain in operation until final decision of the matter by the Divisional Commissioner and thereafter, the rights and obligations shall be governed by the order to be passed by the Divisional Commissioner." 8. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court as aforesaid, the petitioner made a representation to the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, keeping in view the earlier order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 19.4.94, order dated 29.9.97 passed by the Taxation Tribunal and order dated 25.4.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, the Divisional Commissioner found that the petitioner is not entitled for exemption from payment of tax in terms of notification dated 23.7.81 as claimed. Accordingly, the representation has been rejected by the order impugned dated 6.1.14. Hence, this petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that by virtue of provisions of Section 6 (e) & (f) of the Act, the petitioner society registered as public trust, is exempt from payment of tax and further, the petitioner society is exempt from the payment of tax in terms of the notification dated 23.7.81 issued by the State Government, whereby the tax payable in respect of the lands and buildings owned by and in the name of religious and charitable trust stands exempted w.e.f. 1.4.73. Learned counsel urged that the Divisional Commissioner has not examined the matter in its entirety and objectivity, which has resulted in an erroneous finding being arrived at. 10. It is to be noticed that the original application preferred by the petitioner questioning the legality of order dated 19.4.94 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, allowing the revision petition preferred by the assessing authority against the appellate order dated 31.3.83, was dismissed by the Taxation Tribunal, vide order dated 29.9.97. The Taxation Tribunal on the basis of the material on record arrived at the categorical finding that the lands and buildings of the petitioner is separate and distinct from the lands and buildings of Sir Pratap Senior Secondary School. It has also come on record that the petitioner was receiving rent from the school. The Taxation Tribunal on the basis of the material on record arrived at the categorical finding that the lands and buildings of the petitioner is separate and distinct from the lands and buildings of Sir Pratap Senior Secondary School. It has also come on record that the petitioner was receiving rent from the school. The Taxation Tribunal observed that since the lands and buildings which belong to a particular caste is not being used for any common purpose of the community or public purpose, cannot be exempted merely because of the fact that it may have given some financial aid or donation to the school. Moreover, a review petition preferred by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 29.9.97, which later stood transferred to this court, also stands dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2000 and thus, the order passed by the Taxation Tribunal, has attained finality. In this view of the matter, the Divisional Commissioner could not have granted exemption from payment of tax under the Act to the petitioner while sitting in appeal over order dated 29.9.97 passed by the Taxation Tribunal, affirming the order dated 19.4.94 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, exercising the power under Section 19 of the Act as revisional authority. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Divisional Commissioner, rejecting the representation of the petitioner seeking exemption from payment of tax under the Act, cannot be faulted with. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that as per provisions of Section 21 of the Act, the State Government or such other authority or officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may if it considered necessary in the public interest, by notification in the official gazette, exempt, reduce or remit whether prospectively or retrospectively the tax payable in respect of any class of the lands and buildings or by any class of persons. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner has been authorised by the State Government to exercise the power under Section 21, to exempt reduce or remit the tax payable under the Act. Suffice it to say that the Divisional Commissioner could not have granted the exemption for payment of tax as prayed for by the petitioner exercising the power not vested in it. 12. Suffice it to say that the Divisional Commissioner could not have granted the exemption for payment of tax as prayed for by the petitioner exercising the power not vested in it. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, rejecting the representation made by the petitioner, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 14. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the petition shall not preclude the petitioner from making appropriate representation to the State Government seeking exemption from payment of tax.