IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1698 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEJITH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, MUNDEMPILLIL HOUSE, WEST OF CHAKKAMKULANGARA, NADAMA, THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANAYANNUR TALUK, NADAMA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 4. K.K. PADMAVATHY, W/O. LATE BHASKARAN PILLAI, KURIKKANATTU HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1698 of 2009(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION BEARING NO. E.P 112/2008 IN OP (MV) 3364/2000 EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.45,000/- TOWARDS REALIZATION OF THE DECREE AMOUNT AS FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.08.2008, CLAIMING AN AMOUNT OF RS.38,124 WITH INTERESTS, SERVED ON THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION APPLICATION NUMBERED E.A.46/2008. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 1698 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the judgment debtor in an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. Since the petitioner did not pay the award amount, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing Ext.P3 notice. The petitioner claims that on receipt of Ext.P3 the petitioner paid off the amounts due under the award directly to the 4th respondent, who was the claimant in the Motor Accident Claim. However, now the petitioner is directed to pay collection charges under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act also, which is under challenge before me. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay collection charges in so far as as soon as Ext.P3 notice was received, the petitioner had directly paid the amount to the 4th respondent. 2. Although notice has been served on the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent has not entered appearance to controvert the averments in the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader W.P(C) No. 1698 of 2009 -2- could not satisfy me that apart from issuing Ext.P3 notice, the Revenue Recovery authorities had taken any further steps for recovery of the amounts. 3. In view of the decision of this court in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar 2005(3) KLT 150, simply because a notice without taking any further steps under the Revenue Recovery Act, the Revenue Recovery authorities cannot recover collection charges. Therefore, if the petitioner has actually paid the amount directly to the 4th respondent as claimed by him, further steps for recovery of the collection charges shall be dropped. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs