JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner-Trust claiming to be running Educational Institutions is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality and correctness of demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Sa.Kum.Aa (Y.U)/Ma.Va/PR/136/2022-23 dtd. 1/8/2022 (Annexure-P) and also to declare that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no authority of law to levy property tax upon the petitioner with respect to the schedule property in view of the general exemption granted under Sec. 110(1)(e) and Sec. 110(1)(i) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 1976 Act'). 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Rohan Hosmath for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.N.K.Ramesh for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-Trust is running Educational Institutions in the property, on which the respondent-BBMP has raised property tax under the impugned notice. It is submitted that the petitioner's Educational Institutions are not liable to pay property tax in view of the exemption under Sec. 110 of the 1976 Act. Learned counsel would further points out Annexure-G2 dtd. 12/7/2014, wherein, the petitioner had brought to the notice of the respondent-BBMP with regard to the Educational Institutions run by the petitioner in the properties in question. Learned counsel would also invite attention of this Court to Annexure-K, the statement, which indicates the payments made by the petitioner from the year 2011 onwards till 2021, which would totally amounts to Rs.10,12,53,453.00. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned demand notice, demanding property tax from 2008-09 onwards from the petitioner-Trust is wholly illegal and opposed to Sec. 110 of the 1976 Act. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has never obtained exemption under Sec. 110 of the 1976 Act and therefore, the petitioner would be liable to pay the entire demand. Further, learned counsel Sri. N.K.Ramesh, would submit that it is for the petitioner to demonstrate before the respondent-Corporation that the properties in question are utilized for educational purpose and then only the petitioner would be entitled for exemption under Sec. 110 of the 1976 Act. Since the petitioner has not produced document and sought exemption from the respondent- Corporation, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. 5. Since the petitioner has not produced document and sought exemption from the respondent- Corporation, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. 5. Sec. 110(1)(e) and Sec. 110(1)(i) reads as follows: "110(1)(e) - charitable hospitals and dispensaries but not including residential quarters attached thereto; 110(1)(i) - [building or vacant lands], exclusively used for,- (a) students hostels which are not established or conducted for profit; (b) educational purposes by recognised educational institutions; (c) the offices of Labour Associations registered under the Trade Union Act , 1926 and belonging to such Association" 6. The above provision empowers the respondent- Corporation to exempt from payment of property tax, if the building is utilized for the purposes stated therein. In the instant case, the petitioner states that the petitioner is running Educational Institutions in the buildings, on which the property tax is demanded under the impugned notice. The respondent-BBMP without deciding the entitlement of the petitioner for exemption under Sec. 110(1)(e) and Sec. 110(1)(i) could not have demanded property tax from 2008-09 to 2022-23 when the representation/application of the petitioner seeking exemption in terms of Annexure-G2 dtd. 12/7/2014, which was received by the BBMP on 15/7/2014, was pending. During the pendency of petitioner's application for exemption from payment of property tax, issuing demand notice, would be unreasonable and unfair. In the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER a) The petition is disposed of. b) Demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Sa.Kum.Aa(Y.U)/Ma.Va/PR/136/202 2-23 dtd. 1/8/2022 (Annexure-P) is read down as show-cause notice. c) The petitioner is granted a week's time to submit representation along with relevant documents seeking exemption from payment of property tax under Sec. 110(1)(e) and Sec. 110(1)(i) of the 1976 Act. d) Respondent No.1 shall consider the representation of the petitioner dtd. 12/7/2014 received on 15/7/2014 by the BBMP (Annexure-G2) along with representation, if filed, as directed above and pass appropriate order in terms of Sec. 110(1)(e) and Sec. 110(1)(i) of the 1976 Act, within a period of four weeks from today. e) Till the order is passed as stated above, no precipitative action shall be initiated in pursuance to the impugned notice. f) All contentions of the parties are kept open.