S.N.F. Alloys (P.) Ltd. vs State of U.P. and Others

Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State.

By virtue of present writ petition the Petitioner is challenging the order of recovery of the collection charges to the tune of 10%. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the recovery certificate was issued for recovery of the amount due. Subsequently, vide letter dated 24.12.2001 the same recovery certificate was requested to be returned immediately for consideration, confirmation and verification of the account which is Annexure-2 to the letter. Again recovery certificate was issued for recovering the amount mentioned in the alleged recovery certificate which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. By virtue of Annexure-4 a demand notice was sent for recovery of collection charges upto the tune of 10% of the amount sought to be recovered.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the first recovery citation was suo motu called back by the issuing authority and subsequently another recovery citation was issued. Infact, no proceedings in pursuance of the recovery certificates were started or commenced which may cause an occasion for enhanced demand for collection charges. He submitted that he is mainly aggrieved on the point of demand of collection charges @10% and submitted that such demand cannot exceed beyond the rate of Rs. 3.75 and demand in excess is wholly unsustainable.

Learned standing counsel for the State conceded the facts and situations raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner regarding the processing of the recovery certificate.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to a case law Asha Textiles (P.) Ltd. and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein it has been held that U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. 1952- Rules 255 and 259--Recovery as Arrears of Land Revenue - Collection Charges-Recoverable at rate of Rs. 3.75 and not more- Demand in excess thereof -wholly unsustainable. In the same Division Bench ruling the decision given in Chemopulp Tissues Limited v. State of U. P. and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4307 of 1981, has been referred as such that the collection charges can be recovered at the rate of Rs. 3.75 only and not more than that. It was held in the aforesaid case referred above that recovery charges cannot exceed more than Rs. 3.75 and the demand of the Respondents in excess thereof is wholly untenable.

In view of the case law as referred above, it is apparently clear that collection charges at the rate of 10% is wholly unjustifiable and hence the petition succeeds and is allowed. The Respondents are directed not to insist payment of collection charges more than Rs. 3.75 in respect of recovery of the amount as claimed by them in the demand notice which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.