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 3 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 4 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
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 6 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 7 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