Allowed

The Deputh Tahsildar v. K.Narayanan Nair

Kerala HC28 Jan 2015WA/1163/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court set aside the lower court's direction exempting the petitioner from paying collection charges. The Court held that statutory obligation under Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968 mandates payment of 1% collection fees even if payment is made directly to the authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to remit payment of collection charges to the appellant authorities.

The Deputh Tahsildar Vs K.Narayanan Nair — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/8TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WA.No. 1163 of 2009

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9540/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WPC:

¶8

1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R), KOZHIKODE.

¶9

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAVADU, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WPC:

¶12

1. K.NARAYANAN NAIR, KAYAMMAKAL HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBA, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (B/O) R2 BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J. &

¶18

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶19

================================

¶20

W.A. No. 1163 of 2009

¶21

=================================

¶22

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2015

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

A.M.Shaffique, J.

¶25

This is an appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition challenging judgment dated 25.03.2009 in WP(C) No.9540 of 2009.

¶26

By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge directed Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice to be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner remits the entire amount due with interest in six equal monthly instalments. However, in the latter portion of the judgment, the learned Single Judge observed that since the authorities have not taken any steps apart from issuing notices under Section 7 or Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner need not pay collection charges.

¶27

-2-

¶28

W.A. No. 1163 of 2009

¶29

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well

¶30

as the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.

¶31

The learned Government Pleader refers to the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition and the grounds taken by the writ petitioner and submits that the petitioner never had a case that he is not liable to pay any collection charges. In that view of the matter, there was no reason for directing that the petitioner need not pay the collection charges. Even otherwise, as per Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968, if the payment is directly made to the requisition authority, the petitioner shall be liable to pay the collection charges of 1%.

¶32

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the payment had already been remitted directly to the requisitioning authority. Under such circumstances, if at all there is an obligation to pay collection charges the liability of the petitioner is limited

¶33

-3-

¶34

W.A. No. 1163 of 2009

¶35

to 1% of the amount involved in the matter. In fact being a statutory obligation, the same cannot be waived by the Court.

¶36

Under such circumstances, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the extent stating that the petitioner need not pay collection charges is hereby set aside and the writ appeal is allowed, accordingly.

¶37

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶39

das

The Deputh Tahsildar v. K.Narayanan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputh Tahsildar v. K.Narayanan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Subash Nagori Vs Biju Prabhakar IAS

Susheela Vs the District Collector

State of Kerala Vs Georgekutty P.J.

Viju Oommen Vs Superintendent of Police

The Deputy Tahsildar and Another Vs K.K.Thankappan and Others

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs K.v.Rajendran