BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

AT ERNAKULAM
W.P (C) No. ________________ of 2013

PETITIONER
1. Thulasidharan Pilla, aged 52 years,
S/o Raghavan Pillai, Kadakkal House,
Thamarakkulam, Mavelikkara - 690530
2. Nazarudeen K.M., aged 51years,
S/o V. Muhammed Musthaffa, Proprietor of Thampuran Land Ground,
7/449, Thamarakulam, Mavelikkara 690530.
v.
RESPONDENTS
State of Kerala,
Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary (Finance),
Finance Department, First Floor, Main Block, Government Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram, Pin 695001
WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
A. Address for service of all notice and process to the Petitioner is that of its Counsel
Shri. P. THOMAS GEEVERGHESE, Advocate, Room No. 201, Mannanthara
Buildings, Paramara Temple Road, Ernakulam North 682 018.
B. Address for service of all notices and processes to the Respondents is as shown above.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The first petitioner is a father, preparing for the wedding of his daughter that is
auspiciously scheduled to be conducted on 23
rd
March 2014, in the auditorium owned
by the Second Petitioner. A true copy of the astrological schedule drawn up for the
said wedding by Josthsyer Ramesh K Nambuthiri on 10.8.2013, is produced herewith
and may be marked as Exhibit P1.
2. The first petitioner is actually a farmer by avocation and is classified by the
respondent as a person falling in below poverty line family. A true copy of his ration
card issued by the respondent is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit
P2. He is arranging the finances for his daughters wedding through his large circle of
friends and relatives, who all are being invited for the wedding. It is usually a custom
for the people living in the southern part of Kerala, to financially and materially
contribute, when a wedding is being conducted in their family or neighbourhood. In
expectation of such contributions, the first petitioner is inviting about a thousand
people, for his daughters wedding.
3. The second petitioner is the proprietor of an auditorium named Thampuran Land
Ground at Thamarakkulam, Alappuzha, having a total seating capacity of 1100 seats.
He is an assessee of Luxury Tax levied by the respondent, bearing registration
number 32042541767. A true copy of his registration certificate is produced herewith
and may be marked as Exhibit P3.
4. In the Kerala Finance Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as the Act) the respondent has
introduced a new levy titled as Mangalya Nidhi Cess in Section 11 of the Act. It is
submitted that the said cess is a compulsory taxation on every wedding and its connected
celebrations, and is liable to paid by the person who is conducting the wedding. Section 11 of
the Act (hereafter referred to as the impugned provision/tax) is extracted below for
ready reference:
11. Levy and collection of cess on wedding celebrations.(1) There shall be levied
and collected a cess to be called Mangalya Nidhi Cess on every wedding and its
connected celebrations conducted in hotels having the classification of three star and
above or in auditoriums with a seating capacity of above five hundred including that of
dining halls, at the rated specifed in the Table below, namely:
TABLE
(i) Hotels of three star and above Rs. 10,000
(ii) Air conditioned auditorium situated Rs. 10,000 in Municipality area
(iii) Air conditioned auditorium situated Rs. 7,500 in Panchayat area
(iv) Other auditoriums situated in the area Rs. 5,000 of Municipality
(v) Other auditoriums situated in Rs. 3,000 Panchayat area
(2) The cess shall be collected from the person from whom the charges or rent for such
celebration are received by the proprieter of such hotel or auditorium, as the case may be,
and shall be remitted to Government Treasury in the Head of Account of Mangalya Nidhi
on or before the 15th day of every month.
(3) The proprietor of such hotel or auditorium shall file a statement in such form as may be
prescribed and submit the same along with the proof of remittance of Mangalya Nidhi Cess
to the assessing authority under the Kerala Tax on Lururies Act, 1976 (32 of 1976) having
jurisdiction over the area, on or before the 15th day of every month. He shall also keep a
register containing the details of remittance of Mangalya Nidhi Cess is such manner as
may be prescribed.
(4) The statement referred to in sub-section (3) may be filed and the amount of cess may
also be paid electronically be the proprietor through the website of the Commerical Taxes
Department, Government of Kerala.
(5) The proprietor of the establishment entrusted with the collection of the cess shall apply
for obtaining a unique identification number to the assessing authority under to Kerala Tax
on Luxuries Act, 1976 (32 of 1976) having jurisdication over the area where such
establishment is situated, in such manner as may be prescribed and the assessing
authority shall allot the same to the establishment.
(6) Where any proprietor of a hotel or an auditorium as stated in subsection (1) permits any
person to conduct a wedding celebration without the payment of cess under this section,
such proprietor shall be liable to pay such amount of cess as if he had conducted the
wedding celebration and such amount shall be recovered from him as if it is arrear due
from him under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (32 of 1976).
(7) The Government may, after due appropriation made by the Legislature by law is this
behalf, utilise such sums of money for the purposes specified in the Mangalya Nidhi
Scheme framed by the Government.
Explanation.For the purpose of this section,
(a) The word proprietor shall include the person who the time being is in-charge of
management of such hotels or auditoriums, as the case may be;
(b) The word auditorium hall include shall and kalyanamandapam also;
(c) The word prescribed means prescribed by rules made by the Government in this
behalf.
(8) The provisions regarding the assessment and recovery of tax in the Kerala Tax on
Luxuries Act, 1976 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the assessment and recovery of cess
under this section.
5. The Mangalya Nidhi Cess is neither an amendment to any existing tax-legislation nor
is an increment to an existing tax, but it is a new tax, standing independently under
the Finance Act, 2013 itself. Section 11 was not declared under Kerala Provisional
Collection of Revenues Act, 1985, and therefore it came into force only on 23
rd
July
2013, when the Finance Bill was signed by the Governor and got promulgated.
6. It is submitted that the impugned Mangalya Nidhi Cess although uses the euphemism
Cess, it is a compulsory extraction of money without providing any benefit or
service in return. The mere fact that it is called in the name of cess for administrative
needs by the draftsman do not in any manner either undermine the compulsory
nature of the levy or render it any less a mandatory levy. The true character of the
impugned Managalya Nidhi Cess is that of a TAX on those who conduct a
marriage/wedding in an auditorium/hotel.
7. If one analyses the four essential components of the impugned levy, then the
Taxable Event is the Wedding and its connected celebrations conducted at
hotel/auditorium ;
Tax Obligation is upon the Person who pays the rent of the hotel/auditorium ie the
person who is conducting the Wedding;
Tax Collection is by the Proprietor of auditorium/hotel; and the
Rate of Tax is fixed according to the location and category of hotel/auditorium in
which wedding is conducted and its minimum is 3000/-.
Pith and substance of the impugned cess is imposition of tax on every wedding and
connected celebrations happening in the State of Kerala.
8. The budget discussion explaining the reasons and objects for the introduction of the
Mangalya Nidhi Cess, as available in the website maintained by the respondent, is
produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit P4. Apart from the preliminary
introduction as evidenced in Ext. P4, there was not a single serious discussion or legal
debate on the competence or impact of the impugned cess, when the Finance Bill was
tabled in the State Legislature.
9. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners are deeply aggrieved by the
introduction of impugned tax, since it adversely affects their divergent and collective
interests. The impugned cess casts an additional financial burden on the 1
st
petitioner,
to conduct his daughters wedding. Similarly, the 2
nd
petitioner is unnecessarily
dragged into additional tax collection and compliances, which would make his
business less competitive in the market.
10. It is most humbly submitted that the impugned Mangalya Nidhi Cess is beyond the
legislative competence of the respondent. It is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of
fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners by the Indian Constitution. Hence,
deeply aggrieved with enactment of Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013, the
petitioner is left with no other alternative remedy, but to file this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution on the following among other grounds:
GROUNDS
A. Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013 which introduces Mangalya Nidhi Cess, is
outside the legislative competence of the respondent. In Shinde Brothers v. Dy.
Commissioner, AIR 1967 SC 1512, it was held that Cess is a tax levied for a specific
administrative purpose and it should comply with Arts. 245, 246 and 265 of the
Constitution. Wedding/Marriage is a matter falling in Item No. 5 of List III
(Concurrent List) of Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution. IT IS A NON-
TAXABLE ENTRY. The Indian Constitution does not permit a State to impose tax on
marriages, unlike instances of sale of goods or agricultural income. Hence, the
Mangalya Nidhi Cess enacted by the respondent is beyond the legislative competence
of the respondent.
B. In Seven Schedule of the Indian Constitution, Entries 1 to 81 in List I mention the
several matters on which Parliament could legislate and entries 82 to 92A of List I
enumerate the taxes which Partliament could impose tax. Similarly in List II, entries
in 1 to 44 form a group comprising the subjects on which States can legislate; entries
45 to 63 deal with State taxes. There are no taxable entries in List III- Concurrent
List. To understand the difference between taxable and non-taxable entries, one can examine
Entry 18 of List II which is Land, while entry 45 is Land Revenue. From above, it
is clear that taxation is not included in the main subject in which it might, on an
extended construction, be regarded as included, but actually it is treated as distinct
matter for purposes of legislative competence. A tax cannot, therefore, be levied
outside the specific tax entries enumerated in the three lists (Indian Conditional Law,
Prof.M.P Jain, 6
th
ed, p.663). A tax can be levied only under a tax entry and not
under a non-tax entry as an ancillary or incidental matter (Abdul Quader & Co
v. STO, AIR 1964 SC 922). Hence, Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013 is
violative of Articles 245, 248(2) and 265 of the Constitution.
C. Besides, the impugned tax is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the
petitioners under Articles 14, 19 & 21of the Constitution. Right to get married is a
fundamental right of every citizen protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Tax imposed upon marriage is an unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational restriction
placed upon ones Right to Life and Liberty. The impugned tax is authoritarian and
repressive in nature, which is inconsistent with the democratic, progressive and
welfare framework of the country. The impugned tax fails the Test of
Reasonableness laid down by Maneka Gandhis Case(AIR 1978 SC 597 at p.622)
through Bank Nationalisation Case(AIR 1970 SC 564). Hence, Section 11 of the Kerala
Finance Act, 2013 is violative of Articles 21, 14 & 19 of the Constitution.
D. The impugned cess is also a Tax on Assembly in relation to marriage functions. The
first petitioner have fundamental Right to assemble peaceably and without arms under
Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which can be restrained under Article 19(3) only
for reasons of Sovereignty and Integrity of India or Public Order. Revenue collection
is not a permissible restriction under Article 19(3) of the constitution. Hence, Section
11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013 is violative of Articles 19(1)(b) read with 19(3) of
the Constitution.
E. Marriage/Wedding is a sacred religious ceremony for the majority of Indians. For
Hindus and Muslims, Auditoriums/Kalyanamandapums, are essential for conducting
any marriage. According to Article 25 of the Constitution All persons are equally
entitled to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. Article 27 deals with Freedom
as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion. A conjoint reading of
Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that religious
ceremonies are beyond the direct taxing realm of the Government. Hence, the
Mangalya Nidhi Cess enacted by the respondent is violative of Article 25 read with
Article 27 of the Indian Constitution.
F. The impugned cess cannot be categorised as a luxury tax, since firstly there is already
a luxury tax levied under the Kerala Luxury Tax Act, 1976; secondly the literal
interpretation of the impugned provision explains it as a tax on marriage; thirdly and
most importantly wedding conducted by inviting 250persons and above is a not a luxury
but a matter of social commitment. One who does not have a minimum of
500persons to invite for his wedding, is a social deviant, and not a normal person. In
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of UP, 2005(2) SCC 515, it was held that luxury
means activities of indulgence, enjoyment or pleasure, and only those activities can be
subject matter of tax under the said entry. Marriage is not a matter of indulgence or
enjoyment, but it is a social institution and a requirement of the society. Besides, size
of the hall booked or the locality in which it is located, are not the attributes of luxury
to impose a quotient of luxury tax. The 1
st
Petitioner is inviting so many number of
people for his daughters wedding, only in expectation to receive financial support
from the invitees and to discharge his social commitment.
G. The State cannot under the grab of Luxury Tax under Entry 62 List II, abduct a non-
taxable subject like marriage, by merely describing it as luxury. In Godfrey Philips
India Ltd. v. State of UP, 2005(2) SCC 515, it was held that first principle in relation to
the legislative entries is that they should be liberally interpreted, that is, each general word should be
held to extend to ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be
comprehended in it. Second Principle is that competing entries must be read harmoniously, that is, to
read the entries together and to interpret the language of one by that of the other. In such
interpretation, wedding and wedding celebrations falls under Entry 5 of List III, and
not Entry 62 List II.
H. Even otherwise, the impugned tax provision is so badly conceived and drafted that it
imposes tax even on Mass-Wedding-of-Poor, which are also organised in
auditoriums alone. Hence, the very object for which the impugned tax is introduced,
stands defeated currently due to the bad drafting and poor conception of the
impugned provision. Besides, the inclusion of dining seats while computing the
seating capacity of the hall, virtually reduces the number of permissible invitees to
less than 250, if one decides to avoid tax.
I. The classification of weddings conducted in auditoriums/hotels having seating
capacity of 500 and above, is an arbitrary and unreasonable classification lacking any
reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Wedding and wedding
celebrations are not only conducted in Auditoriums, Hotels and Kalyanamandapams
alone, but they are also organised in Panthals/Canopy, which currently stands
excluded from any taxation. The exclusion of weddings conducted in
Panthals/Canopy, is arbitrary, unreasonable and differential treatment of
persons similarly situated. Therefore impugned cess is violative of Article 14 of the
constitution.
J. There is no reasonable excuse for differently taxing auditoriums/hotels, based on
their location, ie whether it is in Grama Panchayat, Municipality or Corporation, since
such classification does not further the object for which the tax is imposed.
K. The union government has enacted Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which occupies
and governs all monitory transactions during a marriage. It specifically prohibits
compulsory extraction of money during marriage, whether directly or indirectly, from
either party to the marriage. Therefore, Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013
which demands tax on marriage, is akin to dowry, and is repugnant to the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and therefore is void by operation of Art. 254(1) of the
Constitution.
For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is most humbly
prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to
1. Declare that Section 11 of the Finance Act, 2013 which introduces
Mangalya Nidhi Cess, is ultra vires the Indian Constitution and quash the
same as illegal and invalid.
2. Issue any other writ, order, declaration or direction as this Honble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Dated this the 22
nd
day of September, 2013.

Thulasidharan Pilla Nazarudeen K.M
[Petitioners]

P.Thomas Geeverghese
Counsel for Petitioners

Interim Relief
For the reasons stated in the Writ Petition and the accompanying affidavit this Honble
Court may be pleased to stay the enforcement of Section 11 of the Finance Act, 2013, till the
final disposal of the Writ Petition.
Dated this the 22
nd
day of September, 2013

P.Thomas Geeverghese
Counsel for Petitioners
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
AT ERNAKULAM

W.P(C) No. _________________ of 2013
Thulasidharan Pilla & another : Petitioner
v.
State of Kerala : Respondent
Affidavit
I, Nazarudeen K.M., aged 51years, S/o V. Muhammed Musthaffa, Proprietor of Thampuran
Land Ground, 7/449, Thamarakulam, Mavelikkara 690530., do hereby solemnly affirm and
state as follows:
1. I am the 2
nd
petitioner in the above writ petition. I know the facts of the case. I am
affirming this affidavit on behalf of the 1
st
petitioner also, who is aggrieved similarly
and is espousing this writ together.
2. The statement of facts and grounds urged in the writ petition are true and correct.
The Exhibits P1 to P4 produced are true copies of the originals.
3. I have not filed any other writ petition before this Honble Court seeking the very
same reliefs prayed for in this original petition.
All facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
Dated this the 22
nd
day of September, 2013

DEPONENT
Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the Deponent on this the dated this the 22
nd
day
of September, 2013 in my office at Ernakulam.


P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
AT ERNAKULAM

W.P(C) No. _________________ of 2013
Thulasidharan Pilla & another : Petitioner
v.
State of Kerala : Respondent

Synopsis
1. Petitioners are aggrieved by enactment of Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013,
which introduces a new tax in the name of Mangalya Nidhi Cess.
2. Section 11 levies cess/tax on every wedding and its connected celebrations conducted in
halls/hotels/kalyanamandapams having minimum seating capacity of 500 and above.
The tax is levied from the person who is conducting the marriage, and the minimum
tax is 3,000.
3. Wedding/Marriage is a matter falling in Item No. 5 of List III (Concurrent List) of
Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution. It is a non-taxable entry.
4. A tax can be levied only under a tax entry and not under a non-tax entry as an
ancillary or incidental matter (Abdul Quader & Co v. STO, AIR 1964 SC 922).
5. Hence, this writ petition is filed to declare that Section 11 of Kerala Finance Act,
2013 is ultra vires the constriction and quash the same as illegal.

Dated this the 22
nd
day of September, 2013

P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
AT ERNAKULAM

W.P(C) No. _________________ of 2013
Thulasidharan Pilla & another : Petitioner
v.
State of Kerala : Respondent

INDEX
SL. NO. ITEM PAGE NO.
1 Synopsis I
2 Writ Petition

3 Affidavit

4
Exhibit P1: True copy of the astrological schedule drawn up for
the 1
st
petitioners daughters wedding by Josthsyer Ramesh K
Nambuthiri on 10.8.2013.

5
Exhibit P2: True copy of Ration card No. 1421042555 of the 1
st

petitioner

6
Exhibit P3: True copy of luxury tax registration certificate No.
320425/2013/CERTINO/60 of the 2
nd
petitioner dated 14
th

June 2013.

7
Exhibit P4: Print out of relevant pages of Budget Speech of the
Finance Minister, downloaded from
http://www.finance.kerala.gov.in



Dated this the 22
nd
day of September, 2013

P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
Presented on : ______________
Sub: Tax Mangalya Nidhi Cess introduced in Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2013
Legislative competence and legality of, challenged.

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM

W.P(C) No. _________________ of 2013

Thulasidharan Pilla & another : Petitioner
v.
State of Kerala : Respondent





WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA











P. THOMAS GEEVERGHESE (T- 293)
Room No.201, Mannanthara Building
Paramara Temple Road, Ernakulam
Appendix
Petitioners Exhibits:
Exhibit P1: True copy of the astrological schedule drawn up for the 1
st

petitioners daughters wedding by Josthsyer Ramesh K Nambuthiri on
10.8.2013.
Exhibit P2: True copy of Ration card No. 1421042555 of the 1
st
petitioner
Exhibit P3: True copy of luxury tax registration certificate No.
320425/2013/CERTINO/60 of the 2
nd
petitioner dated 14
th
June 2013.
Exhibit P4: Print out of relevant pages of Budget Speech of the Finance Minister,
downloaded from http://www.finance.kerala.gov.in

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM
W.P (C) No. 23476 of 2013
THULASIDHARAN PILLA & ANOTHER : PETITIONERS
V.
STATE OF KERALA : RESPONDENT
REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
I, Nazarudeen KM, aged 52years, S/o V. Muhammed Mustaffa, Proprietor of Thampuran
Land Ground, 7/449, Thamarakulam, Mavelikkara, do hereby solemnly affirm and state the
following:
1. I am the 2
nd
petitioner in the above case. I know the fact of the case. I am
affirming this affidavit on behalf of the 1
st
petitioner also, who is my friend, espousing this
writ petition along with me.
2. I have read the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, and this
reply affidavit is necessitated to address certain contentions made therein.
3. According to the respondent, the impugned Mangalya Nidhi Cess is a Fee
and not a Tax, and it is legislated under Entry 66 of List II of the 7
th
Schedule to the
Indian Constitution.
4. In this context, it relevant to state that the validity of a statutory provision
is to be tested by the courts considering the principles enshrined in the Constitution, and
not by the explanation rendered by an official of the executive in his counter affidavit. The
executive does not hold the brief for the legislature. Hence, the interpretation given by
respondent that Mangalya Nidhi Cess is a fees and not a tax, is actually of no relevance.
5. Presuming of the sake of argument that Mangalya Nidhi Cess is a fee as contended
by the respondent, then it becomes all the more illegal and unconstitutional. In Hingir
Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 459, the constitutional bench of the
Supreme Court explained when cess becomes a fees, and its characterises, as under:
(Para 9) A fee is levied essentially for services rendered and as such there is an
element of quid pro quo between the person who pays the fee and the public
authority which imposes it. If specific services are rendered to a specific area or
to a specific class of persons or trade or business in any local area, and as a
condition precedent for the said services or in return for them cess is levied against
the said area or the said class of persons or trade or business the cess is
distinguishable from tax and is described as a fees. Tax recovered by public
authority invariably goes into the consolidated fund which ultimately is utilised for all
public purposes, whereas a cess levied by way of a fee is not intended to be, and
does not become, a part of the consolidated fund.
This judgment is usually read along with the dicta in State of WB v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.,
(2004) 10 SCC 201 to explain the concept of quid pro quo attributed to fees. The revenant
paragraph is extracted hereunder:
(Para 146) Depending on the context and purpose of levy, cess may not be
a tax; it may be a fee or fee as well. It is not necessary that the services rendered
from out of the fee collected should be directly in proportion with the amount of fee
collected. It is equally not necessary that the services rendered by the fee collected
should remain confined to the person from whom the fee has been collected.
Availability of indirect benefit and general nexus between the persons bearing
the burden of levy of fee and the services rendered out of the fee collected is
enough to uphold the validity of fee charged.
6. Therefore, the most important factor for a cess to be categorised as a fee, is
that there should be a beneficiary for the cess levied. In this case, there is no beneficiary
defined by the legislature. There is no provision or rule whereby anybody can be
benefited out of the impugned levy titled as Mangalya Nidhi Cess. All that Section 11(7) say
is that :
Section 11(7): The Government may, after due appropriation made by the
Legislature by law is this behalf, utilise such sums of money for the purposes
specified in the Mangalya Nidhi Scheme framed by the Government.
The impugned regime of Mangalya Nidhi Cess, as it stands today, provides only for
collection of fees and it has no provision, rule or mechanism for distributing the
benefits/services, for which it is allegedly enacted.
7. The non-compulsive axillary verb may used in Section 11(7) of the impugned
provision clarifies the fact that, levy is a tax indeed, and not a fees as sought to be
misrepresented by the respondent.
8. Besides, there is a complete mystery regarding the quantum of benefit
that is probable from the impugned cess. It prevents this court, as well as the petitioner,
from properly analysing the proportionality of impugned cess levied as fees.
9. In this juncture, it is relevant to state that the Finance Minister has made a
vague declaration in Ext. P4 that the money collected through the impugned levy would
be used to fund the marriages of brides hailing from poor families. Ext. P4 does not
have any statutory force. Hence, it cannot be the sole basis for collection of a cess, on a
subject which is prima facie outside the scope of legislative competence of the state.
10. Even if Ext. P4 declaration is given any statutory force in understanding the
real purpose behind the impugned levy and beneficial service intended thereby, even then
the impugned levy cannot be categorised as fee due to lack of apparent nexus between
the fee-payer and the proclaimed beneficiary.
11. In the impugned cess, the beneficiaries proclaimed as per Ext. P4 are girls from
economically weak families. The fee-payer is the person who is conducting a wedding with more
than 500 invitees, which is usually the father of the bride. There is no nexus between the two
characters involved in the cess. They are complete strangers. The cess event does not
connect the two characters involved in the cess. The cess-payer is not even remotely
benefited by the impugned cess or its avowed benefit.
12. Similarly, the authority vested with the duty to collect the impugned cess, is
the Commercial Tax Department. They usually remit the money collected to the
Consolidated Fund of the State. In the impugned cess regime, there is no legislative embargo
on the collection agency not to remit the cess into the consolidated fund or to keep the fund
separately for the benefit of the alleged beneficiary. In such circumstances, it cannot be said
that impugned cess is a fees.
13. A more disturbing factor about the impugned cess is the pure illegality of
the transaction, or what it stands for. Mangalya Nidhi Cess collects money from the
organiser of a wedding with more than 500 invitees, which is usually the father of the bride
and in lieu desires to finance the wedding of girls hailing from economically weak families.
This transaction, if rightly perceived, is the nature of the State demanding dowry
from the father of bride, and promoting dowry among weaker sections of the society.
14. Any fees levied on marriage, weather by State or family of the bridegroom,
would fall within the ambit of Dowry, which is prohibited under Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. Section 2 of the 1961 Act reads:
Section 2 Definition of `dowry :- In this act, `dowry means any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either
party to the marriage or to any other person;
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said
parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II.-The expression `valuable security has the same meaning as in Sec.
30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
The impugned cess demanded as fees, would squarely fall within the definition of Dowry.
The cess/fee is basically money, which is a property. It is demanded by the State, in
connection with the marriage, from parents of either party to a marriage.
15. In Kerala, there used to be a despicable practice of conducting a sons
wedding to finance the marriage of the daughter. The impugned cess is one of similar nature.
Therefore, Section 11 of the Kerala Finance Act,2013 is repugnant to the Dowry Prohibition
Act and therefore void by operation of Art. 254(1) of the Constitution.
16. Hence, the contentions of the respondent in its counter affidavit are without
any substance or basis. The writ petition ought to be allowed and Section 11 of the Kerala
Finance Act,2013 has to be quashed as unconstitutional.
All the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Dated this the 13
th
day of July, 2014
Deponent
Solemnly affirm and signed before me by the deponent who is personally known to me on
this the 13
th
day of July, 2014 in my office at Ernakulam.

P. THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
Counsel for the Petitioner
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM
I.A No. _________________ of 2014
in
W.P (C) No. 23476 of 2013
THULASIDHARAN PILLA & ANOTHER : PETITIONERS
V.
STATE OF KERALA : RESPONDENT

VERIFIED PETITION TO ACCEPT REPLY AFFIDAVIT,
filed under Rule 150 of the Kerala High Court Rules
I, P.Thomas Geeverghese, aged 29years, advocate, S/o P.T. Geeverghese, Vayaliparambil
House, Perumbavoor, do hereby solemnly affirm and state the following:
1. I am the counsel appearing for the petitioners. I know the facts of the case.
2. The respondent had filed a memo on 19.3.2014 to adopt counter affidavit filed in a
related case, onto this case.
3. The petitioner ought to have filed reply affidavit within 24days thereon. However,
there occurred a delay in filing the reply affidavit, owing to the unavailability of the
petitioners.
4. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit today, which may be accepted onto the file
of the writ petition.
5. The delay occurred as aforesaid, is not due to any wilful laches or omission on the
part of the Petitioner. If the delay in filing the reply affidavit is not condoned,
petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship
Hence, prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the
reply affidavit and accept the same onto the record.
Dated this the 14
th
day of July 2014.
P. Thomas Geeverghese
Counsel for the Petitioner
All the facts stated above are true.
P. Thomas Geeverghese
Counsel for the Petitioner
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM
W.P (C) No. 23476 of 2013
THULASIDHARAN PILLA & ANOTHER : PETITIONERS
V.
STATE OF KERALA : RESPONDENT

INDEX
SL. NO. ITEM PAGE NO.
1 Reply Affidavit

2 Verified petition to accept reply affidavit



Dated this the 14
th
day of July 2014.

P. Thomas Geeverghese
Counsel for the Petitioner

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM
W.P (C) No. 23476 of 2013
THULASIDHARAN PILLA & ANOTHER : PETITIONERS
V.
STATE OF KERALA : RESPONDENT



REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS









P. THOMAS GEEVERGHESE (T-293)
Room No.201, Mannanthara Building
Paramara Temple Road, Ernakulam