(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in impugned order in Na.Ka.No.7184-2003-C1, dated 23.01.2004 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, directing the respondent No.3 to release the recovered amount of Rs.61,454/- as time barred arrears of property tax and water tax.)

1. By the impugned proceedings, dated 23.01.2004 issued by the third respondent, the petitioner was fastened with liability of Rs.61,454/- as time barred arrears of property tax and water tax and consequently, he was called upon to furnish the details of recovery already made within seven days.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Tax Collector in the year 1974 and thereafter, appointed as Revenue Assistant in the year 1992. After rendering 30 years of service, he retired on 31.01.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. But few days before the date of such retirement, the impugned proceedings, dated 23.01.2004 came to be passed by the third respondent holding that the petitioner was responsible for not collecting the time barred arrears amount of property tax and water tax to the tune of Rs.61,454/- and consequently, he was called upon to give the details of the recovery made by him. The said impugned proceeding of the third respondent is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the said recovery sought to be made against the petitioner was without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without any notice and therefore, it violates principle of natural justice. Apart from that, it is also challenged on the ground that the petitioner as Revenue Assistant cannot be held responsible for the time barred arrears of water and property taxes and the said responsibility vested only with the Commissioner of the Municipality, as per G.O.Ms.No.1881 R.D. and L.A. Department, dated 14.09.1981.

3. Though the counter affidavits filed by the respondents 1 and 3 separately stated that the petitioner had not collected time barred taxes till his retirement, which is the bounden duty of the petitioner to do the same before the end of every financial year without allowing any fall of arrears.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the issue involved in this case squarely covered by the decision of this court reported in 2006(1) LLN 768 in the case of N.Mani vs. Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, Villupuram, wherein the learned Judge of this court has considered similar issue and found that the Revenue Inspectors are not liable for recovery of arrears of property tax and consequently, the show cause notice to that effect was quashed.

5. A perusal of the said decision shows that the learned Judge, after following the earlier order passed by this court in other similar matter and also various communications issued by the Director of Municipalities Administration, Chepauk, Chennai has found that the responsibility to take proceedings to recover the tax before they become time barred vests with the Commissioner and the Revenue Officers are not responsible for the tax arrears which became time-barred. Thus, the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the above decision.

6. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and consequently, set aside the impugned order. The respondents are directed to repay the amount already withheld by them, in pursuant to the impugned order passed, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.