IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8825 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ N.ANIL KUMAR, S/O.M.GOVINDAN, CHANDRATHARA P.O. AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANNUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, KANNUR - 17. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON 18/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI ,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 8825 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was a licensee for collecting gate collection charges and wharfage landing and berthing charges of Mappilabay Fishing Harbour, which comes under the Harbour Engineering Department. Though licence agreement was executed, according to the petitioner, there was delay in handing over the site and electrical equipments. In the circumstances, according to the petitioner, he could not exercise control over the area by constructing a boundary wall. 2. Proceedings were taken at the instance of the third respondent after the period of the agreement for recovery of the electricity charges, which had to be paid by the department. According to the petitioner, he was not liable to pay the said electricity charges. Though the issue was taken up before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the petitioner's application was dismissed stating that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged violation of the contractual condition, his appropriate WPC.8825 /2008 2 remedy is before the civil court. The amount sought to be recovered by the department has not been provided under the agreement. Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Government as per Ext.P2 under section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. But when steps are taken to recover the amount originally demanded from the petitioner, he has approached this court. 3. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In circumstances where an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- has been paid by the petitioner, further recovery shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four months from today. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.8825 /2008 3