Kerala High Court
Aneeshya Ashok Kumar vs The District Collector on 27 March, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8043 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ANEESHYA ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS
W/O BIJU, M/S HAYIL TRADING, KALLUMPURATH HOUSE,
SAKTHINAGAR- 31, KARIKODE T K M C P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691005
BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR(RR),KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
X7VR, KALOOR ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682017
4 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR)
KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION BRANCH OFFICE, KATTAPANA
PULIKKAL BUILDING, CHENNATTMATTAM JN. KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI,
PIN - 685508
5 BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH
OFFICE, KATTAPANA, PARAKKANDATHIL BUILDING, PULIYANMALA
ROAD, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685508
6 THE CHIEF MANAGER
KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION BRANCH OFFICE, KATTAPANA,
PARAKKANDATHIL, BUILDING PULIYANMALA ROAD, KATTAPPANA,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685508
7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691004
BY ADVS.
ADV. VENUGOPAL M.R.
DHANYA P.ASHOKAN(K/001671/2000)
S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN(K/000644/2020)
ATHULYA V.R.(K/000850/2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8043 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
impugning Ext.P9 proceedings of the 3rd
respondent - Deputy Collector, whereby, an
amount equal to 7.5% of the sums recovered by
the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) directly
from them have been ordered to be paid as
recovery charges. The petitioner asserts that,
since the sums in question were paid by him
directly to the KFC, only an amount equal to 1%
thereof can be recovered as charges and not 7.5%
as now ordered. He thus prays that Ext.P9 be
quashed and relies in substantiation on the
judgment of this Court in Ali Haji K.C. v.
District Collector, Wayanad [2023(1)KHC 552] .
2. Interestingly, Smt.Dhanya Asokan -
WP(C) NO. 8043 OF 2024
learned Senior Counsel, instructed by
Sri.S.Muhammed Alikhan - learned counsel
appearing for the KFC, affirmed that the amounts
in question were received by her client directly
from the petitioner and that normally, going by
the declarations in the afore precedent, the
Revenue Department could have sought only 1% as
recovery charges. She, therefore, submitted that
her client will be abide by any direction to be
issued by this Court. She added that, in fact,
her client, in obedience to the directions in
Ali Haji (supra), has already instructed all
officers to collect only 1% as recovery charges,
where payments are made directly under a
settlement.
3. Smt.Mable C.Kurian - learned Senior
Government Pleader, in response, submitted that
WP(C) NO. 8043 OF 2024
when the payments have been made by the
petitioner, albeit directly to the KFC, pending
Revenue Recovery action, her client is also
entitled to recover charges as per the statutory
Scheme. She argued that, therefore, Ext.P9 is
without error.
4. I am afraid that I cannot find full
favour with the afore submissions of the learned
Government Pleader because, as rightly submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner -
Sri.Praveen K.Joy, the question whether the
Department of Revenue can charge 7.5% even for
amounts paid under settlement directly with the
KFC has been dealt with and answered
specifically in Ali Haji (supra). This has not
been considered by the Deputy Collector when
Ext.P9 has been issued.
WP(C) NO. 8043 OF 2024
5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that
the entire matter will require to be
reconsidered by the Deputy Collector, before any
further recovery action can be permitted.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this
writ petition and set aside Ext.P9; with a
consequential direction to the 1st respondent to
reconsider the matter, adverting to Ali Haji
(supra) and after affording an opportunity of
being heard both the petitioner and the
authorised officer of the KFC; thus culminating
in an appropriate fresh order, as expeditiously
as is possible, but not later than two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Needless to say, until such time as the
afore is done and the resultant order
WP(C) NO. 8043 OF 2024
communicated to the petitioner, all further
recovery action qua the charges claimed by the
Revenue Department against the petitioner shall
stand deferred.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS
WP(C) NO. 8043 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8043/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE
ISSUED FROM KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
KATTAPPANA BRANCH OFFICE DATED 19/09/2016
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 29 OF
THE SFC'S ACT DATED 09/02/2017
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
CHIEF MANAGER, KFC KATTAPPANA BRANCH TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/08/2018
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT
DATED 07/03/2019
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ACCOUNT
STATEMENT IN LOAN ACCOUNT NO.040212330 DATED
22/03/2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PROVISIONAL ACCOUNT STATEMENT IN LOAN ACCOUNT
NO. 040212310 DATED 22/03/2023
Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RECEIPT DATED
18/02/2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF WP(C)
30425/2023 DATED 20.09.2023
Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF KFC DATED
11.12.2023
