IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17951 of 2004(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MASTHIKUNDU MAMMUNJI & SONS TIMBER MERCHANTS, PANALAM, ALAMPADY P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.MOOSA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.M.V.ASHA BINDU SMT.M.S.KIRAN SRI.DEEPAK JOY.K. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KASARAGOD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KASARAGOD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KL. WP(C).No. 17951 of 2004(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS of the 2ND RESPONDENT NO.B6-8221/2001 DATED 16/02/2004. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 09/02/2004. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/03/2004 IN W.P.(C) NO. 7491 OF 2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. ST-941, 942 & 943/00-01 DATED 25/05/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE KL. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 17951 of 2004 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Issue involved in this writ petition relates to demand for payment of collection charges under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is admitted that the amount in arrears has already been paid in full to the requisitioning authority. Question whether there is any liability on the defaulters to pay collection or service charges in cases where arrears was directly paid to the requisitioning authority, now stands settled through a Division Bench decision of this court in Malabar Organics Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 328). In view of the said decision the collection charges or service charges are not leviable in such cases. 2. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery proceedings initiated under Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb