The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :
“(i) Call for the records leading upto Exhibit P2, P4 and P5 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions.
(ii) Declare that the money payable as per Exhibit P3 and P5 cannot be recovered invoking provisions of the Kerala Recovery Act as the same is barred by limitation;
(iii) Declare that the interest claimed in Exhibit P4 and P5 is illegal and not in conformity with Section 6 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act;
(iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. “
2. When the matter came up for consideration on the last occasion, considering the specific plea raised by the petitioner with regard to limitation, the Government Pleader was required to get instruction, especially in view of the law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision rendered in 1999 (2) KLT 146 [State of Kerala Vs. Y.R. Kalliyanikutty].
W.P.(C) No. 28195 of 2014 : 2 :
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader brought it to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has not produced the first notice issued to the petitioner, but for producing the second notice. However, it is conceded from the part of the petitioner that he has satisfied the 'principal amount' as borne by Ext. P1 receipt dated 23.07.2013. When the petitioner admits satisfaction of the 'principal amount', it is no more open for him to raise the plea of limitation, as the part payment effected was only on 23.07.2013. The only remaining question is with regard to interest. The petitioner has raised the said contention by way of 'Ground E' stating that rate of interest can only be 12 %, instead of 12.5 %, by virtue of the mandate under Section 6 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
4. Considering the negligible extent of dispute now remaining for consideration, this Court does not find it as a fit case to call for interference. However, it is made clear that, if any excess payment is effected, such extent shall be caused to be returned/refunded to the petitioner without delay.
5. In view of the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by W.P.(C) No. 28195 of 2014 : 3 :
way of 'two' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 15th of November, 2014 followed by next installment to be effected on or before the 15th December, 2014. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in remitting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump, from the stage where it stands now.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)