IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13476 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.MOIDEEN, AGED 62, S/O.LATE MR.MARAKKAR PROPRIETOR, HILL TOP RUBBER COMPANY, PARAMMAL, FEROKE COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 632. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 011. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 631. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1,3& 4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 13476 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to have established a small scale industrial unit. It is stated that the unit was not viable and finally turned sick. The Electricity Board had supplied power. But however due to default in paying the amount due, supply was disconnected and their installation was also dismantled. 2. Petitioner submits that when the Electricity Board announced One Time Settlement Scheme, the petitioner applied for the benefit of the said scheme. However, that was allowed by the Board by Ext.P2, which inter alia required the petitioner to remit 5% of the dues towards collection charges payable under the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner sought review of the decision by approaching the Adalat, but however did not succeed. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount towards collection charges due under the Revenue Recovery Act and to further direct the 4th respondent to intimate the amount that is due to the Board. WPC 13476/09 :2 : 3. When the matter came up for admission on 26/5/2009, it was adjourned to today with a direction to the learned Government Pleader to ascertain whether any steps were taken under the Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioner for realising the dues to the Electricity Board. 4. On instructions, today the learned Government Pleader confirms that although revenue recovery requisition was received by them, no steps under the Act were taken against the petitioner. 5. It is the settled legal position that liability of a defaulter to pay collection charges due under the Revenue Recovery Act arises only if amount has been realised in pursuance to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. In this case, apart from issuing a requisition to the recovery authorities, no step whatsoever has been initiated, muchless any amount has been recovered. If that be the position, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the collection charges under the Revenue Recovery Act and that prescription in Ext.P2 issued by the 4th respondent is unsustainable. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of declaring that WPC 13476/09 :3 : for availing of the benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme announced by the 1st respondent, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay collection charges payable under the Revenue Recovery Act. The respondents shall extend the benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme to the petitioner excluding the aforesaid element. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent, who shall quantify and intimate the petitioner the amount which is due to the Board. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp