IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37669 of 2009(C)
1. B. MOHANAN, PROMOTER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
5. THE SECRETARY,
6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :04/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 37669 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 4th January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is mainly
against Ext. P3 seeking to realise ‘collection charges’ in respect
of realisation of the amount stated as due, invoking the
provisions under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
proceedings taken by the respondents contrary to the actual facts
and figures were sought to be rectified then and there and as and
when the matter was got finalised, the liability was cleared in
toto directly to the Ist respondent under which circumstance, no
amount is liable to be paid towards ‘collection charges’ to the
revenue authorities . The learned Counsel placed reliance on
the decision rendered by this Court in Malabar Organics Ltd.
vs. State of Kerala [2009(4) KLT 328]. After formulating
the relevant questions of law, the same were answered by the
Division Bench of this Court, holding that there was no liability to
W.P.(C) No. 37669 OF 2009
2
pay the ‘collection or service charges’, in case the defaulter paid
the arrears directly to creditor/party concerned, though it is after
issuance of a notice under Section 7 or S.34 of the Revenue
Recovery Act. It has been categorically made clear therein, that
the liability to pay such charges would arise only in cases where
further steps of attachment and sale are effected. However,
taking note of the rule position, as embodied under Rule 4, it
has also been observed that, in cases where the machinery
under the Revenue Recovery Act is made to start, the actual
expense to the extent of 1% is permitted to be realised in
appropriate cases.
3. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P3 notice
issued by the respondents seeking to realise various amounts as
‘collection charges’, ranging from 5% to 7.5% in respect of the
different transactions and the different periods is not correct or
sustainable. Hence the same is hereby set aside.
4. The second respondent is directed to re-consider the
actual extent of liability in this regard, in tune with the law
declared by this Court as per the decision cited supra. The
W.P.(C) No. 37669 OF 2009
3
proceedings in this regard shall be finalised as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within three months, of course, after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk