IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 15802 of 2008(F) PETITIONER(S ): 1. MRS.K.SARASAMMA GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LATE SRI.P.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. K.G.PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.P.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. MRS.PRAMEELA K.S., AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE SRI.P.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. K.G.PRAMOD KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.P.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O. MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNAMTHANAM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. R.VIJAYAKUMAR, RAMANILAYAM, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. A.S.NARAYANAN NAIR, SOBHALAYAM, KADATHIKARA, VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 15802/2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF D.C.B. STATEMENT. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 18-3-2008. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 15-5-2008. EXT.P4 PARTITION DEED DT. 21-1-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 15802 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are legal heirs of one P.K. Gopalakrishnan, who was a co-licensee along with respondents 5 and 6 for conduct of arrack shops. There were some arrears of abkari dues in respect of the same. The entire amounts due were paid off. Subsequently, the petitioners approached respondents 3 and 4 for mutation of the properties in their name. However, Ext. P. 2 notice was issued to them directing them to pay collection charges at the rate of 7.5% for the arrears collected. On the ground of pendency of that notice, respondents 3 and 4 are not taking steps for mutation of the properties in the petitioners' name, is the grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition. According to the petitioners, no collection charges are due from them to the Government in the matter in so far as the abkari dues are dues to the Government and not to any institutions notified under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act . The petitioners further point out that in the decision of this Court in Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. The Inspecting Asst. Commissioner, 2008(1) KLT 752, this Court has held that no collection charges can be recovered in respect of the collection of Government dues and that such collection charges can be demanded only in respect of the dues to institutions notified under Section 71 of the Act. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records leading to Ext. P. 2 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction; ii) declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay any amount towards collection charges in pursuance to Ext. P. 2; iii) declare that the petitioners are entitled to get mutation effected in their names in respect of the properties inherited by W.P.C. No. 15802/2008 -: 2 :- them from late Sri. P.K. Gopalakrishnan; iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1, 3 and 4 to effect mutation in the petitioners' names in revenue records of the properties inherited by them from late P.K. Gopalakrishnan.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He opposes the prayer. According to him, since collection charges are still pending payment by the petitioners, the mutation cannot be effected. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. It is not disputed before me that in Pullangode Rubber & Produce Company's case (supra), this Court has held that collection charges cannot be demanded in respect of collection of amounts due to the Government. I am in respectful agreement with the said decision. That being so, no amounts can be recovered from the petitioners as collection charges in respect of the collection of amounts due from late P.K. Gopalakrishnan as abkari dues, which are dues to the Government and not to any institution notified under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. That being so, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, Ext. P2 demand for collection charges is quashed. Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to complete the proceedings in respect of the application for mutation of properties submitted by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/