no levying any collection charges for mere issuance of citation_WRIC(A)_56175_2011

Following question was referred to larger Bench to decide in WRIT - C No. - 56175 of 2011 titled as Mahrajwa And Others v State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy. And Others  by the Allahabad High Court:

Whether decision in Mange Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2010 (2) CRC 216 in so far as it takes the view that there is no provision under any of the Acts for levying any collection charges for mere issuance of citation or sale proclamation is correct; or, the decision in Chinta Mani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 (1) AWC 637 holding that provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 279 do not contain any provision for an absolute waiver of recovery charges where the citation has been issued under sub-section (1) and the charging section empowers the Collector to raise such demand subject to the rules and provision of Revenue Recovery Act U.P. Act No.37 of 2001, is correct.

Bench having three judges namely Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J., Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J. and Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J. has said:

“The issuance of recovery certificate is a ministerial job. If no concrete further steps have been taken and the arrears have not been realised by them and instead the defaulter pays the amount of arrears directly to the creditor or to the person to whom it is due then it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the State authorities have recovered the amount of arrears.” At page 20-21

……………………………………………….

Referring and discussing various judgment the bench said:

“From the aforesaid decisions, it is absolutely clear that it has to be seen as to under what Act the recovery  has been initiated. Whether it is under 1890 Act, 1950 Act or 1973 Act. If the recovery proceedings have been initiated under 1890 Act then in that event if the recovery is being made under Section 3 of the Act then cost of recovery would be 10% of the amount stated in the certificate. However, if recovery certificate has been issued but no recovery had  been  made  by  the  State  authorities,  who  had  issued  the  recovery certificate as for example the defaulter directly deposits the amount or the recovery certificate is withdrawn or cancelled for any reason whatsoever then in that event there is no question of charging any costs of recovery.” At page 23

…………………………………….        

We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court in the case of Mange Ram  &  Anr.(supra)  and  hold  that  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Chinta Mani(supra) does not lay down the correct law at page 24