JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get vacancy remission application allowed starting from the date of completion till the building is occupied, further to declare that respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to raise demand for building tax for the period 2011-12, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Necessary facts required for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner along with one S.K. Abbas Haji had constructed a multi-storied building within the limits of the 1st respondent Municipality, after securing permit, having 40 rooms altogether. The building was numbered as PMC XXI- 2695A to Z and XXI-2695 A1 to R1. Though the building was completed in 2010, the building was assigned with the number only on 22.08.2011. The 1st respondent issued notice of assessment for property tax on 22.08.2011, assigning building numbers to the entire construction of the petitioner, evident from Exts.P1, P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) series. 3. Immediately after assigning the building number, the 1st instalment of tax was paid on 24.08.2011 itself, evident from Exts.P2, P2(a) to P2(g) series. However, electrical connection was not sanctioned to the building, and therefore, the building could not be let out to any of the tenants or occupied by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner submitted a notice for vacancy remission on 28.03.2012 for the first six months after the assessment, as contemplated under Sec.239(3)(a) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. It is also the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, application was submitted in every six months for vacancy remission and respondent has issued receipts for the same, evident from Ext.P3, P3(a) to P3(e) series. That apart, it is submitted, the fact that the building is not occupied by anybody is well known to the 1st and 2nd respondents, as the same is just in front of the Municipal Office. Since the petitioner had submitted vacancy remission applications from time to time, the respondent did not demand him to pay the building tax. 4. That apart, it is submitted, the fact that the building is not occupied by anybody is well known to the 1st and 2nd respondents, as the same is just in front of the Municipal Office. Since the petitioner had submitted vacancy remission applications from time to time, the respondent did not demand him to pay the building tax. 4. However, on 22.06.2015, 1st respondent issued a notice, stating that on verifying the application submitted by the petitioner, it is seen that the building tax arrears for the year 2011-12 was not remitted, and therefore, unless and until the said arrears of tax is paid by the petitioner, application for vacancy remission submitted by him on various occasions cannot be considered at all, evident from Ext.P4. Thereupon, petitioner submitted a memorandum before the 3rd respondent enumerating the details enclosing the relevant documents, evident from Ext.P5, and the 3rd respondent has forwarded the same to the Regional Joint Director, Urban Affairs, Calicut for enquiry. The enquiry on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner is pending. However, the 1st and 2nd respondents are contemplating to recover the amount allegedly due to them being the building tax arrears for the period from 01.10.2010 till 22.08.2011. 5. The case of the petitioner is that, petitioner is not liable to pay any such tax since the building was not actually occupied by the petitioner. That apart, it is contended that, the vacancy remission application can only be filed after assessment of building tax. Therefore, there is no logic for demanding building tax prior to the date of assignment of the building number and assessment of tax, saying the reason that, no vacancy remission application was filed for the said period. Therefore, the demand raised by the respondents for the period from 01.10.2010 to 22.08.2011 as a pre-condition for allowing the vacancy remission application is illegal and unsustainable. 6. It is further submitted that, the petitioner has deposited the first instalment of building tax immediately after notice of assessment as per Exts.P2 series of receipts, which is liable to be refunded in the light of Sec.239 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Further, petitioner has sold few rooms in the building and he was compelled to pay the alleged arrears of building tax for the year 2011-2012 in respect of the said buildings. Further, petitioner has sold few rooms in the building and he was compelled to pay the alleged arrears of building tax for the year 2011-2012 in respect of the said buildings. True copies of the receipts viz., Exts.P6 and P6(a) to P6(k) series are produced to establish that the tax for a portion of the period, as is demanded, is paid by the petitioner. 7. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. It is stated that, on 05.10.2010, petitioner and his partner have given a certificate in the Payyannur Municipality, stating that they had completed the construction of the building undertaken by them. But, after the inspection of the building, it was found out that the toilet, waste disposal system, stair case roof of the building are all not finished, so a notice was sent to the petitioner for completing the works of toilet, waste disposal system etc. etc. After finishing the construction, occupancy certificate has been issued to the petitioner and according to that from 01.10.2010 onwards, the tax has been charged, evident from Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). 8. The application for vacancy remission was given only on 28.03.2012 as the rooms in the building remain vacant. The petitioner had applied for reduction in tax amount according to Sec.239(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. But, as tax due is there, tax has to be remitted, then only, the application for tax reduction can be considered and the fact is informed to the petitioner. From 2011-2012, half year onwards, petitioner had given completion certificate and according to that, tax was evaluated and the same was remitted by the petitioner. But, for the assessment year 2011-12, no tax was remitted or any application for tax reduction was given. Before every half year, if the building is vacant, the application has to be given. Other contentions raised by the petitioner with respect to non-consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner are all denied by the respondents. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 10. Other contentions raised by the petitioner with respect to non-consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner are all denied by the respondents. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 10. It is evident from the pleadings made by the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted vacancy remission application in accordance with Sec.239 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, from the assessment years 2012-2013. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that, the demand for tax is raised by the Municipality only for the period 2011-2012. It is also evident from the respective submissions made by the petitioner as well as the Municipality, the tax was assessed on and with effect from the issuance of occupancy certificate to the petitioner. The case projected by the petitioner is that, the completion certificate was submitted by the petitioner only on 08.10.2010, and therefore, an occupancy certificate could not have been issued by the Municipality on 01.10.2010. The said submission is made by the petitioner on the basis of the pleadings in the counter affidavit. 11. It is further submitted by the petitioner that, it is not clear from Ext.R1(a) certificate, the date of issuance of the occupancy. However, petitioner has no case that petitioner has not submitted the completion certificate and sought for occupancy on 08.10.2010. If completion certificate is submitted by the owner of the building and the same is not issued by the Municipality, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same, petitioner will secure a deemed occupancy in accordance with the 2nd proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, which stipulates that, if no such occupancy certificate is issued within the said 15 days, the owner may proceed as if such occupancy certificate has been duly issued to him. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 stipulates that the Secretary shall, on receipt of completion certificate and on being satisfied that the construction or reconstruction or addition or alteration has been carried out in conformity with the permit given, issue occupancy certificate in the form in Appendix-H, not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of the completion certificate. 12. 12. Therefore, even assuming that the Secretary has not issued the certificate to the petitioner, or the date in Ext.R1(a) is not clear, to identify the same, the aforesaid stipulation provided under the Building Rules specified above will take its own course, and the petitioner is deemed to have secured occupancy certificate after the expiry of 15 days from 08.10.2010, on which date, petitioner has submitted the completion certificate. 13. Having evaluated the situation so, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not made out any case justifying interference with demand raised by the respondent Municipality, since there being no arbitrariness, illegality or any other legal infirmities on the part of the Municipality in raising demands consequent to occupation of the building by the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, I find no reason to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.