IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 13931 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.D.VILASINI,CHITTY AUDITOR (SUB REGISTRAR) ROHINI, MARADU.PO, ERNAKULAM. PIN:682304. BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR.PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,ERNAKULAM. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SUB TREASURY OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE SUB TREASURY,THRIPUNITHURA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13931 of 2009(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.2.20327/06 DATED 31.1.2007 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P-02/RR/G/47282111, DATED 12.3.2007 OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2007 OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A.R.A. 1-9266/07 DATED 15.1.2008 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A.R.A. 1-9266/07 DATED 11.3.2008 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E.2-20327/06 DATED 12.1.2009 OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION P7 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.1.2009 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION P8 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E.2-20327/06 DATED 9.2.2009 OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION P9 : COPY OF THE REVISED LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 15.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) ERNAKULAM. P10 : COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR IN RESPONSE TO ORDER (2) UNDER REFERRENCE. P11 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.1.2004 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION P12 : COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER 533/98/TD DATED 24.9.1999 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT P13 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RERSPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. app/- P.N. RAVINDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Smt.Mary Benjamin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner retired from service on 31.8.2006 while she was working as Chitty Auditor (Sub Registrar) in the office of the District Registrar (General), Ernakulam. After the petitioner's retirement, the District Registrar (General), Ernakulam issued Ext.P9 Revised Liability Certificate whereby, the sum of Rs.2,93,103/- was fixed as her liability. The principal item of liability fixed in Ext.P9 liability certificate represents the stamp duty and registration fees chargeable in respect of the documents registered by the petitioner during the period from 5.1.2004 to 18.2.2004. It is stated that the said documents were registered without adopting the fair value fixed in the notification dated 5.1.2004 issued by the Government. W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009. 2 Aggrieved by Ext.P9 liability certificate, the petitioner moved the Government by submitting Ext.P13 representation dated 8.5.2009 wherein inter-alia she had stated that the notification dated 5.1.2004 was received in the office where she was working only on 15.1.2004 and therefore, no liability can be imposed on her in respect of the instruments registered by her during the period from 5.1.2004 to 15.4.2004. As regards the registrations made after 15.1.2004, she has stated that only 11 instruments were thereafter registered by her as the registering authority and that out of the said 11 instruments only one instrument was reported to be under valued. This writ petition is thereafter filed challenging Ext.P9 and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the DCRG in full. 3. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.8052 of 2009 wherein she has averred that if the instruments registered by her during the period from 5.1.2004 to 15.1.2004 (both W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009. 3 days inclusive) are excluded from consideration, her liability can only be for the sum of Rs.30,206/-. She has on that ground prayed for an interim order directing the respondents to disburse the balance amount of DCRG. When the said application came up for hearing on 3.7.2009, the learned Government Pleader was requested to ascertain whether only the sum of Rs.30,206/- is due from the petitioner, if the instruments registered by her during the period from 5.1.2004 to 15.1.2004 are excluded. Today, when the writ petition came up for further hearing, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that in the light of the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.36206 of 2008, instruments registered prior to the receipt of the notification dated 5.1.2004 have to be excluded while fixing the liability and that applying the said judgment, the petitioner's liability is only for the sum of Rs.30,206/- as stated by her in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.38052 of 2009. W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009. 4 4. In my opinion in view of the fact that the respondents now concede that the liability of the petitioner is only Rs.30,206/-, it is only appropriate that the balance amount of D.C.R.G. is disbursed to her reserving liberty with her to challenge the fixation of other items of liability in Ext.P9 liability certificate before the Government in other appropriate proceedings. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: a) The respondents shall release to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the DCRG sanctioned to her after provisionally withholding the sum of Rs.30,206/-. b) The petitioner's entitlement to receive payment of the balance amount of Rs.30,206/- will depend on the out come of the appeal filed by her before the Government challenging the fixation of the said amount as her liability. c) The Government shall in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation before the Secretary to W.P.(C) No.13931 of 2009. 5 Government, Taxes Department challenging the fixation of the sum of Rs.30,206/- as her liability, consider the same and pass orders thereon within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Needless to say, the petitioner shall also be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. d) The Government shall after orders are passed communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. In the event of the Government allowing the petitioner's appeal, the balance amount of DCRG, namely the sum of Rs.30,206/- shall also be disbursed to her expeditiously. e) If the decision of the Government is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to her to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. Her contentions in that regard are kept open. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. app/-