IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13931 of 2009(J)
1. P.D.VILASINI,CHITTY AUDITOR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,OFFICE OF THE
4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,OFFICE OF THE
5. SUB TREASURY OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE
For Petitioner :SMT.MARY BENJEMIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :18/08/2009
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Smt.Mary Benjamin, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the
learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner retired from service on 31.8.2006
while she was working as Chitty Auditor (Sub Registrar) in
the office of the District Registrar (General), Ernakulam.
After the petitioner’s retirement, the District Registrar
(General), Ernakulam issued Ext.P9 Revised Liability
Certificate whereby, the sum of Rs.2,93,103/- was fixed as
her liability. The principal item of liability fixed in Ext.P9
liability certificate represents the stamp duty and
registration fees chargeable in respect of the documents
registered by the petitioner during the period from 5.1.2004
to 18.2.2004. It is stated that the said documents were
registered without adopting the fair value fixed in the
notification dated 5.1.2004 issued by the Government.
W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009.
2
Aggrieved by Ext.P9 liability certificate, the petitioner
moved the Government by submitting Ext.P13
representation dated 8.5.2009 wherein inter-alia she had
stated that the notification dated 5.1.2004 was received in
the office where she was working only on 15.1.2004 and
therefore, no liability can be imposed on her in respect of
the instruments registered by her during the period from
5.1.2004 to 15.4.2004. As regards the registrations made
after 15.1.2004, she has stated that only 11 instruments
were thereafter registered by her as the registering
authority and that out of the said 11 instruments only one
instrument was reported to be under valued. This writ
petition is thereafter filed challenging Ext.P9 and seeking a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to disburse the DCRG in full.
3. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.8052 of 2009
wherein she has averred that if the instruments registered
by her during the period from 5.1.2004 to 15.1.2004 (both
W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009.
3
days inclusive) are excluded from consideration, her liability
can only be for the sum of Rs.30,206/-. She has on that
ground prayed for an interim order directing the
respondents to disburse the balance amount of DCRG.
When the said application came up for hearing on 3.7.2009,
the learned Government Pleader was requested to ascertain
whether only the sum of Rs.30,206/- is due from the
petitioner, if the instruments registered by her during the
period from 5.1.2004 to 15.1.2004 are excluded. Today,
when the writ petition came up for further hearing, the
learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
submitted that in the light of the decision of a Single Judge
of this Court in W.P.(C) No.36206 of 2008, instruments
registered prior to the receipt of the notification dated
5.1.2004 have to be excluded while fixing the liability and
that applying the said judgment, the petitioner’s liability is
only for the sum of Rs.30,206/- as stated by her in the
affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.38052 of 2009.
W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009.
4
4. In my opinion in view of the fact that the
respondents now concede that the liability of the petitioner
is only Rs.30,206/-, it is only appropriate that the balance
amount of D.C.R.G. is disbursed to her reserving liberty
with her to challenge the fixation of other items of liability
in Ext.P9 liability certificate before the Government in other
appropriate proceedings. I accordingly dispose of this writ
petition with the following directions:
a) The respondents shall release to the petitioner
within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment, the DCRG sanctioned to her after
provisionally withholding the sum of Rs.30,206/-.
b) The petitioner’s entitlement to receive payment of
the balance amount of Rs.30,206/- will depend on the out
come of the appeal filed by her before the Government
challenging the fixation of the said amount as her liability.
c) The Government shall in the event of the petitioner
filing an appropriate representation before the Secretary to
W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009.
5
Government, Taxes Department challenging the fixation of
the sum of Rs.30,206/- as her liability, consider the same
and pass orders thereon within three months from the date
of receipt of the representation. Needless to say, the
petitioner shall also be afforded a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the matter.
d) The Government shall after orders are passed
communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. In the event
of the Government allowing the petitioner’s appeal, the
balance amount of DCRG, namely the sum of Rs.30,206/-
shall also be disbursed to her expeditiously.
e) If the decision of the Government is adverse to the
petitioner, it will be open to her to challenge the same in
other appropriate proceedings. Her contentions in that
regard are kept open.
P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
app/-