IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29183 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DATAWARE DESIGN LABS (P) LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REGISTERED OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, P.K.C, TOWERS PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHAJI KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY PARKS, KERALA TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) THIRUVALLA. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAPRA VILLAGE, KADAPRA.PO, THRIVALLA. ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 29183/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.11.12.2006 BY THE FINANCE CONTROLLER OF R1. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF R1 DTD.21.12.2006. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF R1 DTD.22.2.2007. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER Y THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF R1 DTD.14.3.2007. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER OF R1 DTD.5.6.2007. P6. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. DTD.7.6.2007. P7. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.14.9.2007 BY R4. P8. COPY OF THE LETTER TO R2 DTD.23.9.2007. RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS R1A. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.2.5.2007. “B. COPY OF THE MINUTES OF 69TH MEETING OF TECHNOPARK DTD.15.11.2006. “C. COPY OF THE -DO- 70TH MEETING -DO-. “D. COPY OF THE -DO- 71ST MEETING -DO- sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.29183 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by respondents 2 to 5 for recovery of the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act. They were engaged in Information Technology business. They availed of the facility offered by the 1st respondent-Techno Park, for establishing a business place. Certain land has been leased by the 1st respondent for that purpose. The petitioner was bound to pay lease rent to the 1st respondent and other amounts in respect of that land. Since the petitioner's business collapsed, they had to stop the business. At that time, an amount of Rs.56,89,939/- payable to the 1st respondent by the petitioner was in arrears. The 1st respondent requisitioned the service of respondents 2 to 5 for recovery the same under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- directly to the 1st respondent along with a request for waiver of 50 per cent of the surcharge in accordance with the order issued by the 1st respondent in that regard, benefit of which was extended to other similar lessees. The 1st respondent agreed on condition that the petitioner provides a bank guarantee for the balance amount of W.P.C.29183/07 2 Rs.6,89,939/-. The petitioner provided that bank guarantee. The 1st respondent never considered the petitioner's request for waiver of 50 per cent of the surcharge, although, according to the petitioner, benefit of remission in surcharge was granted to several other similar defaulters. Despite obtaining a bank guarantee for the balance amount of Rs.6,89,939/-, the 1st respondent chose to invoke proceedings under the Recovery Recovery Act for recovery of the said amount as well as the collection charges. After initiating revenue recovery proceedings, the 1st respondent invoked the bank guarantee furnisehd by the petitioner and recovered the money from the bank, which was intimated to the petitioner by their Bank as per Ext.P6 communication. Even thereafter, again Ext.P7 notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.9.2007 directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount from Rs.56,89,439.92 after deducting Rs.50 lakhs already paid, with collection charges and notice charges, failing which the petitioner was threatened with revenue recovery proceedings. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “A. Call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P8 from the respondents. B. Quash Ext.P7 by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order; C. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to proceed with the proposals in Ext.P7; W.P.C.29183/07 3 D. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to issue a copy of the decision dated 15.5.2007 said to have been made by it rejecting the petitioner's request for waiver of 50% of the surcharge. E. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Ist Respondent to refund 50% of the surcharge reaslised from the petitioner to it;” 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st respondent and the 4th respondent. Now the stand taken by both 1st respondent and 4th respondent is that revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for recovery of collection charges only. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am at a loss to understand why the 1st respondent, after obtaining a bank guarantee from the petitioner for the amount of Rs.6,89,439.92, should invoke proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the same as well as collection charges, if it is not for harassing the petitioner. After writing Ext.R1(a) letter to the Tahsildar requesting recovery of the Rs.6,89,439.92 and collection charges, the 1st respondent invoked the bank guarantee and collected the amount also. I am of opinion that this is a highhanded action on the part of the 1st respondent, for which they should adequately compensate the petitioner. 5. In so far as the collection charges are concerned, respondents 2 to 5 have no case that they have done anything for collecting the said amount except issuing a notice. This Court has in W.P.C.29183/07 4 Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar reported in 2005 (3) KLT 150, held that mere issue of a notice under the Act would not enable the revenue authorities to recover collection charges from a defaulter when the defaulter paid the amounts directly to the requisitioning authority. The ratio of that decision is squarely applicable to this case. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to recovery of collection charges from the petitioner in so far as the petitioner has directly paid the entire dues to the 1st respondent. 6. In so far as I have found that the 1st respondent should adequately compensate for the highhanded action taken against the petitioner, I direct the 1st respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as costs. The said amount shall be paid within two weeks. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge