IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3200 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- MOIDEEN HAJI, S/O.CHEKKU VAZHAYIL, UMMINI KADAVATH HOUSE, OTHUKUNDAL MALAPPURAM. BY ADVOCATES MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WELFARE FUND BOARD, REP.BY ITS DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (ARREAR COLLECTION), TALUK OFFICE TIRURANGADI. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, OTHUKUNDAL VILLAGE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BEJOY CHANDRAN, FOR R2,R3 ADVOCATE MR. P. RAMAKRISHNAN, SC R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 3200 OF 2009 E -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th February, 2009 JUDGMENT The prayer in the Writ Petition is not to collect any collection charges from the petitioner and to adjust the collection charges already collected from the petitioner towards future interest. There is a further prayer to consider the question of revising the interest now being collected from the petitioner from 9% to the nominal rate of interest. 2. Petitioner is in arrears towards the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund. Recovery steps were taken. Petitioner approached the Government. He sought instalment facility. By Ext.P13, instalment facility was granted. Petitioner was directed to remit the arrears in twenty equal monthly instalments commencing from 18.01.2008. Complaint of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3 are collecting 5% as collection charges and 9% interest. 3. I heard Smt. Ambika Radhakrishnan, learned counsel WPC.3200/09 E 2 for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent Board and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the first respondent Board points out that when there was default in paying under the Act, it will attract liability to pay interest at 9% and further Ext.P3 is silent regarding any waiver of interest. It does not speak of waiver of interest. It is, therefore, pointed out that the petitioner is liable to pay interest and cannot take shelter under the sanction of instalment facility. No doubt, as far as the question of collection charges are concerned, it appears that there are only notices under Exts.P1 and P2. If the matter has not progressed as notices under Section 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act, I direct that the petitioner need not pay any collection charges. But, if the matter has progressed beyond the same, the petitioner is also liable to pay collection charges. As far as the question of interest is concerned, I see no merit in the contention of the petitioner. In the first place, it is not very clear that as to what is the source of the power of the Government to grant instalment facility. Assuming there is WPC.3200/09 E 3 power to grant instalment facility, particularly in the light of the fact that there was no waiver of interest as such in Ext.P3, it is clear that it could not have been the intention of the Government that the provisions of the Act providing for levy of interest are not to apply to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he need not pay interest at 9% is rejected. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge