IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 6634 of 2006(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, NIDA, MENONPARA ROAD, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD-678 621. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE RUBBER BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POST BOX N. 1122, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAKKAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1 SRI.MITHUN MARKOS FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.6634/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR DT.28.4.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD TO THE TAHSILDAR DT.13.10.2005. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF the LETTER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE COMPANY DT.26.10.2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANY TO THE TAHSILDAR DT.4.11.2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE COMPANY DT.5.11.2005. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DT.1.3.2006. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.1.3.2006. EXT.P8: EXT.P9: //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 6634 OF 2006 M ==================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, a communication issued by the 2nd respondent requiring the petitioner to pay collection charges for withdrawing the revenue recovery proceedings. 2. The facts of the case are that at the instance of the 1st respondent for realising the amounts that are due, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and Ext.P1 is the notice that was issued. Petitioner submits that immediately on receipt of Ext.P1, the entire amount including interest, was paid directly to the Rubber Board and this fact is seen acknowledged by the Rubber Board in Ext.P2 communication issued by it to the District Collector, requesting for withdrawal of the revenue recovery proceedings. Even thereafter, when the collection charges were demanded from the petitioner by Ext.P3, petitioner issued Ext.P4 requesting the 2nd respondent to withdraw the demand relying on the judgment rendered by this court in Village Industries Centre v. Khadi and Village Industries Board(1996(2) KLT S.N. 49(Page 44)) and Balan v. Tahsildar(2000(1) KLT 746). WPC 6634/06 :2 : 3. According to the petitioner though Ext.P1 notice was issued, that did not result in any recovery of the amount and as he discharged the liability directly to the Rubber Board, they cannot be made liable for collection charges. The request made by the petitioner was turned down by the 2nd respondent by Exts. P5. According to the petitioner, the respondents continued the proceedings and a tanker lorry belonging to the petitioner was seized by Ext.P6. It is challenging Exts. P3, P5 and P6 this writ petition has been filed. 4. The fact that though Ext.P1 notice was issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, the amount was paid directly by the petitioner to the 1st respondent is not in dispute. The 1st respondent has acknowledged such payment and requested for withdrawal of the recovery proceedings as per Ext.P2 communication to the District Collector with copy to the 2nd respondent. Thus the position that the revenue recovery proceedings did not result in recovery of any amount is not to be doubted. If that be so, the defaulter cannot be made liable for the collection charges and this position is settled by this court in the judgments referred to above and also in the judgment in the case of Bhaskaran, K v. The Sub Registrar and others(2005(3) ILR Kerala 137). In the light of the law as laid WPC 6634/06 :3 : down by this court as above, the demand as per Exts. P3 and P5 cannot be sustained. For the same reasons, Ext.P6 seizing the petitioner's tanker lorry also cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts. P3, P5 and P6. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp