IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18522 of 2007(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEJA BAIJU, AGED 33 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, ANJALI CABLES, KALLUPURAYIL, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR, ADV. SRI.R.RENJITH - R2, SRI.S.VIJAYAKUMAR, SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.R.RENJITH, SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR -R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.18522/2007-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 26/05/07. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.(C). 25216/2004. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3.B: COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED TO DEPUTY SECRETARY OF SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT NUMBERED 1142/B1/2006/LSGD DTD. 02/01/2007. EXT.P.5: EXTRACT RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF LICENCE TARIFF WITH IN ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY DTD. 28/07/2006. EXT.P.6 & P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 29/11/2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18522 OF 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2007 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Cable T.V. operator. She has been granted licence by the Municipality. The rates payable to the Municipality are those fixed by as early as on 26.2.1996 in a notification published by the Municipality. In this writ petition, what is impugned is Ext.P1, revenue recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of the defaulted licence fee for the period 2002-2003 to 2007-08. 2. It is seen from the records that by filing W.P.(C).No. 25216/2004, petitioner had challenged the licence fee fixed by the Municipality, as per the notification dated 22.6.1996. This Court disposed of that writ petition by judgment dated 18.9.2006 directing that the petitioner shall remit the licence fee under protest. It was also directed that the petitioner can make an appropriate representation before the Government, in which case, the matter will be considered by the Government. W.P.(C) No.18522/2007 2 3. Learned counsel for the Municipality submits that after the judgment, the petitioner did not discharge the liability but only made a partial payment and it was only long thereafter, she filed a representation before the Government, as directed in Ext.P2 judgment. According to the learned counsel, since payment was only partial and not as directed in Ext.P2 judgment, the Municipality set in motion recovery proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in Revenue Recovery Act and issued Ext.P1 for realising the dues. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so long as the representation is pending consideration before the the Government, the Municipality is not entitled to continue the recovery proceedings. I am not in a position to accept the submission. As already seen, in Ext.P2, the judgment by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25216/2004, filed by the petitioner challenging the rates that are fixed by the Municipality, this Court upheld the notification and directed that the amount should be paid in full, though the petitioner was given permission to move the Government by making a representation seeking clearance of the rates fixed by the Municipality. W.P.(C) No.18522/2007 3 5. Therefore, the liability of the petitioner to make payment of the amount due is upheld by this Court. It is admitted that the petitioner has not paid the full amount, that is, in default. If that be so, Municipality is entitled to initiate recovery proceedings, as it has been done by Ext.P1. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner against Ext.P1 and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ps