JAYASHREE TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) 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 can not exceed beyond the rate of Rs. 3.75 and demand in excess is wholly unsustainable.
(3.) 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.;