IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No.2948 of 2007(E) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.23991/2005, DATED 19/07/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:- ----------------------------------------- RAMESAN @ KARTHIKEYAN, KURAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2948 of 2007-E ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.23991 of 2005 dated 19th July, 2007. 2. In the writ petition filed, the respondent herein/writ petitioner had sought for a direction to refund the collection charges recovered from him under Rule 5 of the Revenue Recovery Rules. 3. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and, while doing so, has observed in his order, that, since the payments that were made by the writ petitioner was voluntary, the State could not have initiated recovery proceedings to recover the collection charges and further could not have recovered the sum by invoking their police powers. 4. Now, it is brought to our notice by the learned Government Advocate, that, the payments that were made by the respondent/writ petitioner was not voluntary, but pursuant to the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against the respondent by the authorities of the State. If that be so, it is a mis-statement of facts which has crept into the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. For W.A.No.2948 of 2007 - 2 - correction of that mistake, Revenue has, necessarily, to file an appropriate review application before the very learned Single Judge. 5. In the above view of the matter, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected, with liberty to the Revenue to file an appropriate application before the appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/dk. Judge