JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P1 decision taken by the Panchayat to classify the entire area of the 2nd respondent Panchayat as Primary Zone. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is a permanent resident of the 2nd respondent Panchayat and is aggrieved by the classification of the entire area of the Panchayat into one single zone and the consequent tax collection. According to the petitioner, sub-section (3) of Section 203 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Act, 1994'), provides that the Village Panchayat shall, subject to the limit prescribed by the Government, fix the basic rates of property tax applicable to each category of buildings, situated in the area of the Village Panchayat. Sub-section (7) thereunder provides that, one of the factors for calculation of the basic property tax of the building shall be the zone in which the building is located (where the areas of Village Panchayat are classified into different zones). It is also pointed out that, the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Property Tax and Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011, was enacted by the Government of Kerala. 3. Rule 5 provides for calculation of the tax based on the plinth area of the building and the purpose for which the building is put to use. Rule 6 provides for certain surpluses and deductions based on a number of factors, the zone in which the building is located being one such factor. Schedule 1 attached to the said rule provides for the classification of the area of a Panchayat into three zones: (i) primary, (ii) secondary and (iii) tertiary. The schedule also provides conditions for classification of area into such zones as follows: “a. Primary Zones: Areas where Government, semi-government offices, commercial establishments, educational institutions, market, bus stand, hospital are comparatively high in number or places which comparatively developed. b. Secondary Zones: Areas around the primary zone, or places which have scope for development; and c. Tertiary Zones: Places which do not come within the primary and secondary zones and areas which are lesser developed, with lesser basic facilities and lesser population density.” The schedule also provides for deduction in tax of 10% in the secondary zone and 20% in the tertiary zone. 4. 4. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 7, the Grama Panchayat shall, for the purpose of Rule 6, classify its geographical areas as specified above, and it mandates that Secondary Zone shall not be excluded from the classification for any reason. Therefore, according to the petitioner, no classification can be made without there being a secondary zone. However, the 2nd respondent in total disregard to the mandates of Rule 7, classified the entire area of the Panchayat as Primary Zone and fixed the rate of tax on the basis of the said classification, evident from Ext.P1. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P1 is issued without application of mind and taking into account the provisions of law for the purpose of classification of the areas. 5. That apart, it is contended that, more than 80% of the 2nd respondent Panchayat is under-developed. Even though petitioner has submitted representation before the 2nd respondent, viz., Ext.P3, there was no action from the side of the said respondent, and thereupon, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5757 of 2015, and as per Ext.P4 judgment, directed the 1st respondent therein to consider and pass orders on the representation. However, thereafter the representation was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order. In Ext.P5, it is stated that, the classification is made after providing public notice in respect of the rates and also published the decision of the Panchayat. It was also made clear thereunder that return shall be submitted within the time frame fixed thereunder. That apart, it is submitted that, there is no mandatory requirement that every Panchayat areas are to be compulsorily classified into different zones, and the Panchayat is at liberty to take a decision to prescribe the area of the Panchayat in one zone. According to the petitioner, the stand adopted by the Panchayat in Ext.P5 cannot be sustained under law. 6. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. That apart, it is stated that the Panchayat Committee, at its meeting held on 27.06.2011, has decided to hold the entire area within the Panchayat as primary zone and the rate of tax is fixed at Rs.5/-per sq.ft., evident from Ext.R2(a). As per the Rules, the decision of the Panchayat should be published at least in one newspaper and accordingly, the decision was advertised in the Malayala Manorama daily. As per the Rules, the decision of the Panchayat should be published at least in one newspaper and accordingly, the decision was advertised in the Malayala Manorama daily. But, nobody filed any objection against the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee. As per Rule 7(1) of the Rules specified above, notification was issued inviting objections from the public and none including the petitioner filed any objection. It was thereafter the Panchayat Committee decided to implement Ext.R2(a) resolution. A true copy of the property tax for residential purposes fixed by the Panchayat is produced as Ext.R2(b). In Ext.R2(b), Sl.No.1 refers to residential houses and the maximum tax is fixed as Rs.5/- per sq.ft. 7. So also, it is submitted that, as per Rule 7(2), after publishing the notice, if any objection is received within 30 days, the said objection shall be considered and appropriate decision can be taken by the Panchayat. However, no objection was received by the Panchayat within 30 days of the publication of the notice, and therefore, the final decision is published by the Secretary and affixed in the notice board of the Panchayat. It is further submitted that, the classification made above shall remain in force for a period of five years, unless it is decided to be changed after expiry of five years. Now the period of five years as provided under Rule 7(5) has already been completed and steps are being initiated for revising the classification. Therefore, according to the Panchayat, the writ petition has become virtually infructuous and the petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Panchayat. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 9. Section 203 of Act, 1994, deals with property tax, wherein it is stipulated that, any Village Panchayat shall in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules as may be prescribed, levy property tax on every building (including the land appurtenant thereto) situated within the area of the respective Village Panchayat and not exempted under the provisions of the Act. As per sub-section (2)(a), the Government shall, by notification, fix the minimum and maximum limits of rates of basic property tax applicable to one square metre plinth area of various categories of buildings in accordance with the use and the date on which they shall come into force. However, I could not find a provision under the provisions of Act, 1994, that the Panchayat shall compulsorily fix different zones. Sub-section (7) (i) of Sec.203 of Act, 1994, only states that where the areas of Village Panchayat are classified into different zones, the zone in which the building is located, which is to be assessed in accordance with various factors, like, availability of road facility to the building; variation in the plinth area of the building; construction of roof of the building; age of the building; construction of the floor of the building; construction of wall of the building; air conditioning facility of the building and nature of use of the building. 10. However, that by itself is not an attendant circumstance to visualise and think that the Panchayat is duty bound to classify the areas of Panchayat into different zones and the Panchayat is not vested with powers to classify the entire Panchayat as a single zone. The Rules discussed above, also makes it clear that there is no compulsion made on the Panchayat to classify the area of Panchayat into different zones. In my considered opinion, what is contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2011, is that, without securing permission from the Government, prime zone cannot be avoided and further that, if the Panchayat decides to have different zones, under no circumstances, the secondary zone should be avoided. Further, as per Note 2 thereunder, the Panchayat is at liberty to classify more areas than one as primary zone. 11. Apart from all these aspects, it is quite clear and evident that Ext.P1 decision was taken by the Panchayat on 27.06.2011 fixing the property tax for a period of five years. There is also no case for the petitioner that objection was raised on publication of notice, as is contemplated under Sec.203 of the Act and the Rules, 2011. On the other hand, case of the petitioner is that, there was no public notice, which in my considered opinion, cannot be raised after a period of four years from the decision of the Panchayat. On the other hand, case of the petitioner is that, there was no public notice, which in my considered opinion, cannot be raised after a period of four years from the decision of the Panchayat. Therefore, it is quite clear and evident that petitioner has challenged the decision of the Panchayat after a period of four years, evident from Ext.P4 judgment of this Court dated 24.02.2015. 12. It is also clear that, as per Ext.P5 order passed by the Panchayat pursuant to the direction issued in Ext.P4 judgment of this Court, the Panchayat has explained the circumstances under which the classification is done by the Panchayat. It is clearly pointed out thereunder that, in spite of publication of the notice in a vernacular daily, petitioner nor any of the residents of the Panchayat has objected to the same. Taking into account all these aspects, both legal and factual, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not made out any case of arbitrariness or patent illegality, so as to interfere with the decision of the Panchayat taken in the year 2011, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So also the period prescribed by the Panchayat as per Ext.R2(a) is over, since the classification as well as the tax was imposed for a period of five years, as is statutorily prescribed. Therefore, the writ petition has no sustenance, and accordingly it is dismissed.