HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1666 of 2025 (M/S) Beehive Ayurved Medical College and Hospital ….....Petitioner Versus District Magistrate/Collector and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondent no.3. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the recovery citation dated 22.05.2025, issued by the respondent no.2/Tehsildaar, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was to pay Rs. 29 Lakhs to the respondent no.3/The Uttarakhand Ayurved University. The respondent no.3/The Uttarakhand Ayurved University had raised a demand on 29.04.2025 and on 17.05.2025 the money was deposited by the petitioner. But, according to the petitioner, on 22.05.2025, the respondent no.2/Tehsildaar, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, has issued a recovery citation for the same amount, including 10 per cent recovery charge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already paid the amount on 17.05.2025. It was the respondent no.3/The Uttarakhand Ayurved University, to inform the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the amount has already been deposited, which, it appears, was not communicated or was not taken note of by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and on 22.05.2025, the recovery citation has been issued. He would submit that there is no question of any recovery now, since the amount has already been paid prior to issuance of recovery certificate. 2 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3/The Uttarakhand Ayurved University admits that on 17.05.2025, the amount had already been deposited by the petitioner, but he would submit that the process of recovery had only been initiated in advance and after checking from the account, on 28.05.2025, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were informed that the amount has already been deposited. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that, in fact, the amount has been deposited prior to issuance of recovery citation, but information was received by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 after the recovery citation has already been issued. He submits that since the recovery citation has been issued, 10 per cent charge is to be recovered. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1998 SCC OnLine All 175, and principles of law, as laid down by this Court in the case of Jariph Alam Vs. District Magistrate, Nainital and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 1355. 8. In the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills (supra), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has, inter alia, observed that:- “The most serious and objectionable aspect of the matter is that the respondents claim 10% of the amount shown in the certificate as collection charges merely on receipt of the recovery certificate as it is a tax or compulsory levy. It is claimed that this practice is prevalent in the State since long and it should not be disturbed. However, if an illegal practice, has no valid source of authority either under the Constitution or any other law, it cannot be allowed to continue by Court merely on the ground of its continuance since long. Ours is a welfare State and entire functioning is under Rule of Law and it cannot be permitted to impose such compulsory exaction of the money for the services rendered which has no corelation with the amount of labour spent or the efforts made. Such compulsory exaction of the money can only be in case of tax or levy imposed by or under authority of a Statutes and not by an executive order. Thus, in our considered opinion, Rule 8(c) and the Government Order dated 30th August, 1974 are illegal and ultra vires of the authority of State Government.” 3 9. In the case of Jariph Alam (supra), in Para 24, this Court has observed as follows:- “24. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court yet again has reiterated the observation already dealt with above that the State would not be entitled to recover 10% of the collection charges, when the actual process of recovery by way of auctioning of the mortgaged property has not been resorted to by them by sale of the property mortgaged for advancement of the loan............................................. ......................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................” 10. In the instant case, the petitioner has already paid the due amount on 17.05.2025 to the respondent no.3/The Uttarakhand Ayurved University. It appears that the respondent no.3/The Uttarakhand Ayurved University, had not taken prompt action in recalling its recovery citation. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have yet not recovered the amount. Merely recovery citation has been issued on 22.05.2025. There is no basis of the recovery citation. On 22.05.2025, when the recovery citation was issued, there was no recovery pending against the petitioner. He had paid the dues on 17.05.2025. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the impugned recovery citation dated 22.05.2025, deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 12. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned recovery citation dated 22.05.2025, is quashed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 12.06.2025 Ravi Bisht