ORDER : (Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records leading to the levy of property tax for the buildings used by the petitioner trust for educational purposes for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 by the impugned demands dated 28.10.2008, 19.08.2009 and 29.07.2010 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from in any manner levying property tax for the buildings used by the petitioner trust fro educational purposes.) 1. These three Writ Petitions challenge demands of property tax for the periods 2008-09 (first half), 2009-10 (first half) and 2010-11 (first half). The petitioner claims to be an Educational Institution and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is entitled to a general exemption from the levy of property tax in terms of Section 83(c) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (in short 'Act'), which reads as follows: 83. General Exemptions ......... (1).... (c) Buildings used for educational purpose including hostels attached thereto, public buildings and places used for the charitable purpose of sheltering the destitute of animals, and libraries and playgrounds which are open to the public. ............. 2. There is no dispute on the position that the educational institution is located in a Town Panchayat and would thus be covered by the sweep of the aforesaid Statute. Special notice for assessment to property tax was issued by the authority in respect of the aforesaid three periods. The petitioner had filed replies dated 03.12.2008 and 05.10.2009 and issued a legal notice 26.05.2012 wherein it had sought the benefit of exemption from the applicability of the Act, although there is no specific reference made to the provisions of Section 83(c). Reference was also made to a pending Writ Petition in W.P.No.21539 of 2008 wherein the applicability of the Act to Educational Institutions was under challenge. 3. This objection has been partly responded to by the Executive Officer in letter dated 02.07.2012 after dismissal of W.P.No.21539 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 30.07.2010, confirmed in W.A.Nos.2152 of 2010 etc. batch. 3. This objection has been partly responded to by the Executive Officer in letter dated 02.07.2012 after dismissal of W.P.No.21539 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 30.07.2010, confirmed in W.A.Nos.2152 of 2010 etc. batch. This was a trigger for the present Writ Petition, since the Executive Officer, under cover of the aforesaid letter, calls upon the petitioner to remit the disputed property tax arrears for the periods 2008-09 to 2011-12 within a period of Seven (7) days from date of receipt of final notice. There is no whisper in this letter regarding the exemption sought for by the petitioner. 4. This Court vide order dated 26.07.2012, had granted an order of interim stay of recovery, upon condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh within a period of two (2) weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this order has been complied with. 5. In the light of the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.07.2010 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Association of Management of Private Colleges, there is no dispute on the applicability of the Act to Educational Institutions per se. Of course, the question as regards whether the petitioner is entitled to an exemption has to be examined in the context of the provisions of Section 83(c), the specific buildings in respect of which the exemption is sought and the use to which the buildings are put, before an assessment be framed and a demand raised. This exercise has not been carried out. 6. Before me, learned counsel for the respondent states that the demand relates only to those buildings that are not put to use for the dissemination of education such as bi-cycle stands and canteens. However, the demand itself contains no narration in this regard. Moreover, in the counter filed, at paragraph No.3, the respondents have stated that the disputed taxes have been levied in respect of school and college hostel, higher secondary school office, five canteens, ten teachers training hostels, bi-cycle stand, three watchman rooms and teachers training office located at Arcot - Arani Road and run by the petitioner trust. Thus the contention that the demand relates only to those buildings that are not directly connected with educational purposes does not appear to be factually correct. Thus the contention that the demand relates only to those buildings that are not directly connected with educational purposes does not appear to be factually correct. In any event, seeing as the petitioner has raised the question of its eligibility to exemption before the authorities and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the authorities till date, the impugned demands are set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also orally states before me that the exemption would not be liable to be granted for the reason that one of the conditions set out in Section 83 (c) of the Act is to the effect that the buildings should be 'open to public'. I do not agree. Section 83 (c) refers to various categories of buildings. They are (i) buildings used for educational purpose including hostels attached thereto, (ii) public buildings, (iii) places used for charitable purposes of sheltering destitutes and animal shelters, (iv) libraries that are open to public and (v) playgrounds that are open to the public. 8. The phrase 'open to public' would thus, in my considered view, be applicable only to the libraries and playgrounds and not to all categories of buildings enumerated. 9. I draw support in this connection from a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sriram Educational Trust V. The President, Tiruvallur Taluk (2008 1 L.W. 601), where the Bench was considering the grant of exemption in the context of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. At paragraph 33, while dealing with a similar objection raised by the respondents in that matter, the Bench states as follows: '33. In any view of the matter, even assuming for a moment "open to public" is attached to an educational institution, yet, in the absence of any definition of "public" under the Act, going by the definition of the term under Section 3(26) of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891, which reads as under: "Public includes any class of the public or any community ", we hold that the educational institutions, even if they are open to a section of the public, would nevertheless be treated as institutions eligible for exemption. It may be noted that in the decision reported in AIR (37) 1950 Travancore-Cochin 103 (ALLEPPEY MUNICIPALITY Vs. It may be noted that in the decision reported in AIR (37) 1950 Travancore-Cochin 103 (ALLEPPEY MUNICIPALITY Vs. BOMBAY CO.), dealing with Travancore District Municipalities Act XXIII of 1116, the Kerala High Court interpreted the word "public" in Section 326(13) of the Act in the sense in which it was defined in Section 2(28) of the Travancore General Clauses Act and held that this would include a section of the public. Dealing with the question as to whether a canteen run by a company for the benefit of the workmen employed, not open to public would be required to take a licence from the Municipality, applying the provisions of the Travancore General Clauses Act, the Court held, the word "public" meant as open to a section of the public and that the provisions of the Travancore General Clauses Act applied to the Travancore District Municipalities Act. In that context, the company was required to get the licence from the municipal authorities.' 10. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents also relies on the amendment to the Act inserted in 2018, that restricts the exemption to only those educational institutions that are aided. This amendment is, in my considered view, prospective and would not be applicable to assessments for periods prior to 2018. 11. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Executive Officer on 24.10.2019 at 10.30 a.m. with a fresh petition claiming exemption as it deems fit. Supporting evidences in this regard shall also be filed. After hearing the petitioner and considering the claim of exemption as well as the materials filed in support thereof, if any, the Executive Officer shall pass a speaking order, specifically bearing in mind the object and ambit of Section 83(c) and the usage of the buildings in question vis-a-vis 'educational purpose', which is a pre-condition for grant of exemption under Section 83 of the Act, within a period of six (6) weeks from date of conclusion of personal hearing. The amount of Rs.1.00 lakh paid by the petitioner as a pre-condition for grant of interim order by this Court will be adjusted towards future demands raised, if any. 12. These Writ Petitions are disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.