High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-07-19Writ petitions allowed to the extent of quashin...

W.P.(C) Nos. 2613 of 2014 and connected cases (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shaji P. Chaly
Judgment Date: 2019-07-19
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the percentage-based increases for certificate of commencement (VII.1) and alteration of chit agreements (VII.2) are quashed. The court holds that those items cannot be sustained at the percentage rates and directs the State to revise these charges to reasonable, quantified fees in line with law. The remaining fee increases are not found to be arbitrary or without quid pro quo and are upheld. The decision emphasizes that the State must implement fees that reflect true regulatory costs while avoiding disproportionate charges. The court directs the government to amend Appendix-II accordingly.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed to the extent of quashing the percentage-based fees for certificate of commencement (VII.1) and alteration in chit agreement (VII.2); other fee increases upheld; government directed to revise to reasonable rates; common judgment delivered by Justice Shaji P. Chaly on 19-07-2019 overseeing multiple connected writ petitions against the 2013 amendments to the Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

St. George Chitties (Karakkattu) Pvt. Ltd.
Karithala Chits and Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Manikanamparambil Chitties Pvt. Ltd.
Central Chits, Pallithazham
The Gumplakal Chitty Fund Pvt. Ltd.
Sevak Chits Pvt. Ltd.
KMLM Chits India Ltd.
Pandalipparambil Kuries Pvt. Ltd.
Ponnus Thattapurrath Chitty Fund Pvt. Ltd.
Fathimanatha Kuries Private Limited
Nellimattathil Chits & Investments
Sadhu Samrakshana SANGHAM Kuries Ltd.
AEPPYEM Chits Kuries Pvt. Ltd.
Sharewealth Chits Ltd.
Machad Kuries Private Ltd.
Thusharam Kuries Private Ltd.
Suhrudha Kuries Private Limited
Sourabhiya Kuries Private Limited
Acharya Kuries Private Limited
Bharathakshemam
Canaan Kuries Private Limited
Kallection Kuries Private Limited
Abewdaya Chitties Private Limited
Ampuchiya Chitties Private Limited
Pius - Minus Kuries Pvt. Ltd.
Kottamury Kuries Private Limited
Sreedhana Kuries and Loans Private Limited
Kottakkal Enterprises
Sree Vidyajayalakshmi Kuries Private Limited
Sree Vidyakrākasini Sabha
Sree Narayana Dharma Sabha
Sree Susbramaniya Sama Jam (Methala) Kuries Private Ltd.
Ebenezer Kuries Private Ltd.
Alpha Kuries and Finance Private Ltd.
Yuvadarsan Kuries Private Ltd.
Dawn Kuries Private Ltd.
General Kuries & Loans Private Limited
Popular Kuries Limited
Dhanaposini Kuries Amballoor Private Limited
Namboodiri's Chitties Private Limited
The New Thrissur Company Private Limited
Pious - Minus Kuries Private Limited
KottaKkal Enterpries
Janapatham Kuries Private Limited
Cherupulassery Chits & Kuries Pvt. Ltd.
All Kerala Association of Chit Funds

Respondents

State of Kerala (represented by the Secretary, Taxes)
Assistant Registrar of Chitties (various offices)
Deputy Registrar of Chitties (District Registrar, General)
Inspector General (Registration)
Various other government officers involved in chit fund regulation

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
• SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI
• SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH
• SRI.R.SREEJITH
• SRI.K.B.GANGESH
• SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
• SRI.SOJAN JOB
• SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL)

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY

Case Synopsis & Summary

The judgment, delivered by Hon. Justice Shaji P. Chaly on 19 July 2019, consolidates multiple writ petitions challenging the State of Kerala’s December 18, 2013 amendment to the Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012 (Appendix-II) which increased the fees for Chit fund operations under the Indian Chit Funds Act, 1982. The petitioners, various chit funds and chit funds-related entities, contend that the fee hike—particularly the percentages tied to certain items such as certificate of commencement (VII.1) and alterations in chit agreements (VII.2)—lacks quid pro quo, is arbitrary and onerous, and would impair the viability of chit business in Kerala. The State, supported by RBI consent, defends the amendments as a lawful exercise under Sections 62, 63, 89 of the Act, and Rules 31 and 44 of the Rules, 2012, arguing that the new rates reflect inflation, increased regulatory burden, and the cost of maintaining enforcement infrastructure. The court analyzes the longstanding distinction between tax and fee, the necessity of quid pro quo, and the jurisprudence on rational fee fixation. It ultimately quashes the percentage-based fees for VII.1 and VII.2, while upholding other fee increases as not arbitrary, and directs the government to revise to reasonable rates. The petitions are allowed to that extent, ensuring regulatory costs are covered by fees without unfounded rigidity.

Provisions of Law Cited

Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Sections 62, 63, 89)Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012 (Rules 31 and 44)Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Section 89)Section 21(b) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982Section 53 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Existence of quid pro quo is essential for retaining the character of a fee (as opposed to a tax).
A broad correlationship between the fee and the services rendered is sufficient; exact mathematical proportionality is not required.
The service rendered must be real, not illusory, and have an objective basis.
The distinction between tax and fee is contextual and depends on the primary purpose and use of the funds collected; a levy can be a fee if it primarily funds specific services to payers.
Quid pro quo test is not rigid; it depends on the circumstances and implementation of regulatory schemes.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext.P3(a) and the overall revision of Appendix II are unconstitutional and arbitrary because the increases are not tied to demonstrable service benefits (quid pro quo) and would cripple the chit funds’ operations in Kerala. They argue that the State’s reliance on inflation and staffing costs does not justify steep percentage-based charges for essential registry and chit-documentation tasks. They urge that the Act and Rules require fees to be proportionate to services rendered and to reflect a genuine link between the fee and the regulated activity; the Government has not demonstrated direct, or even indirect, tangible benefits conferred on payers in proportion to the new fees for several items.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the Chit Funds Act and Kerala Rules empower the government to fix and revise fees to cover the cost of regulation, enforcement, and staff. It asserts there is a quid pro quo, given the regulatory services provided (inspection, registration, compliance oversight), and that the RBI-approved framework supports the fee revision. The State emphasizes inflation, public interest in preventing malpractices in chit funds, and the need to maintain a functional regulatory apparatus; it contends the 2013 amendments are consistent with constitutional protections and consistent with precedents recognizing a pragmatic approach to fee-setting.

Cited Precedents (12)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd.	(1995) 1 SCC 655	Positive	Used to establish the purpose of market-related fees and the need to justify fees by services rendered.
Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab and Anr.	(1979) 3 SCR 1217; AIR 1980 SC 1008	Positive	Foundational principle that quid pro quo is essential for fee; a test to distinguish fee from tax.
Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.	(1983) 4 SCC 353; AIR 1983 SC 1246	Partly Overruled / Limited	Recognized that the exact two-thirds ratio is obiter; supports the need for quid pro quo but not a rigid ratio.
Shri Bhagwan Dass Sood v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others	(1997) 1 SCC 227	Positive	Affirms that quid pro quo between fees and services must be established.
M/s. Dewan Chand Builders & Contractors v. Union of India and Others	(2012) 1 SCC 10	Positive	Discusses the concept of quid pro quo in the context of fee vs tax.
Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments Department and Others v. Sree Murugan Finance Corporation Coimbatore and Others	(1992) 3 SCC 488	Positive	Analyzes the tax-vs-fee dichotomy in regulatory frameworks.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mohd. Yaseen	(1983) 2 SCR 999; AIR 1983 SC 617	Positive	Discusses the fee-vs-tax distinction and the need for proportionate services.
Commr. Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirthya Swamiyar	(1954) SCR 1005; AIR 1954 SC 282	Positive	Precedent for the fee-tax distinction and service-based charges.
H. H. Sudhandara v. Commr. for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments	(1963) Suppl 2 SCR 302; AIR 1963 SC 966	Positive	Part of the lineage distinguishing fee from tax.
Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa	(1961) 2 SCR 537	Positive	Authorities on the fee-vs-tax analysis in public charges.
H. H. Swamiji v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department	(1980) 1 SCR 368; AIR 1980 SC 1	Positive	Important decision on the nature of fees and services.
Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur v. State of Kerala	(1982) 1 SCR 519; AIR 1981 SC 1863	Positive	Support for the regulatory-fee framework within public interest.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.P.(C) Nos. 2613 of 2014 and connected cases (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.2613 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 ST. GEORGE CHITTIES (KARAKKATTU) PVT. LTD., KARAKKATTU BUILDINGS, KANINADU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 310. 2 KARITHALA CHITS AND FINANCE PVT. LTD., 39/864, ANAND BAZAR, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI - 682 016.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SRI.R.SREEJITH : 1 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PUTHENCRUZ - 682 308. 2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM SOUTH -682016. 3 THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM -682016 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 5 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION), VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM - 695001.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **BY ADVS. R1 - R5 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).3881/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3881 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 MANIKANAMPARAMBIL CHITTIES P. LTD., NADAKKAVU P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN-682307** - **2 CENTRAL CHITS, PALLITHAZHAM, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.** - **3 THEGUMPLAKAL CHITTY FUND PVT. LTD., KOTTAYAM-686006.** - **4 SEVAK CHITS PVT. LTD., THADIYOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., PIN-689545.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SRI.R.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, TRIPUNITHURA-682301.** - **2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686691.** - **3 PRINCIPAL SUB REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN-686001.** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 3 - **4 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, VENNIKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST, PIN-689544.** - **5 DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), ERNAKULAM.** - **6 DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM PIN-686001.** - **7 DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA-689545.** - **8 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **9 INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION), VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM-695001** **BY ADVS.** **R1-R9 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.5403 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**KMLM CHITS INDIA LTD.,**| |---|---| ||**MATHEW SONS TRADE CENTRE, KALOOR,**| ||**KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 017.**| |**2**|**PANDALIPARAMBIL KURIES PVT. LTD.,**| ||**KOLANCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 311.**| |**3**|**PONNUS THATTAPURATH CHITTY FUND PVT. LTD.,**| ||**CHALIL BUILDING, MAMALA P.O., NEAR KEL,**| ||**THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 305.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.ANIL D. NAIR**| ||**SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI**| ||**SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH**| ||**SRI.R.SREEJITH**| |**RESPONDENT/S** **:**|| |**1**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, EDAPPILLY - 682 024.**| |**2**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR,**| ||**PUTHENCRUZ - 682 312.**| |**3**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**ERNAKULAM - 682 030.**| |**4**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**5**|**INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION),**| ||**VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| ||**R1-R5 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY**| |**THIS WRIT **|**PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON**| |**02.07.2019,**|**ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE**| |**COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**|| W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 5 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** # **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.8363 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **FATHIMANATHA KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, FATHIMANATHA SHOPPING COMPLEX, KOTTEKKAD, P.O.KUTTUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 3.**| |**3**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**THRISSUR -20.**| |**4**|**INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION),**| ||**VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 6 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.8967 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **NELLIMATTATHIL CHITS & INVESTMENTS, KUNNACKAL P.O., VALAKOM, ERNAKULAM - 682316, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001**| |**2**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM -686661**| |**3**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**NEAR ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION,**| ||**ERNAKULAM -682020**| |**4**|**THE INSPECTOR GENERAL( REGISTRATION),**| ||**VACHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695035.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**R1-R4 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 7 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.9979 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**SADHU SAMRAKSHANA SANGHAM KURIES LTD.,**| |---|---| ||**OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING**| ||**DIRECTOR.**| |**2**|**AEPPYEM CHITS KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED,**| ||**KAVUVATTOM, CHERUPPULASSERY, OTTAPPALAM,**| ||**PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.K.B.GANGESH**| ||**SRI.SOJAN JOB**| |**RESPONDENT/S** **:**|| |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**KUTTANALLUR, THRISSUR.**| |**3**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD.**| |**4**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**THRISSUR-20.**| |**5**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**PALAKKAD-1.**| |**6**|**INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION)**| ||**VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.**| ||**R1-R6 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY**| |**THIS WRIT **|**PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON**| |**02.07.2019,**|**ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE**| |**COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**|| W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 8 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.11487 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SREE VIDYAJAYALAKSHMI KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, 305/VI, PARUR PALIYAM ROAD, CHENDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-682538.**| |**3**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**NEAR ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION,**| ||**ERNAKULAM-682016.**| |**4**|**INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION),**| ||**VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**R1-R4- SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 9 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.11501 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 MACHAD KURIES PRIVATE LTD., THEKKUMKARA P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **2 THUSHARAM KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, VETTUKAD P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **3 SUHRUDHA KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, WADAKKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **4 SOURABHIYA KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, WADAKKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **5 ACHARYA KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ASHTAMICHIRA P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **6 BHARATHAKSHEMAM, EAST FORT, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **7 CANAAN KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, RICE BAZAR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **8 KALLECTION KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHELAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **9 ABEWDAYA CHITTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ERAVU P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **10 AMPUCHIYA CHITTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 10 - **11 PIUS - MINUS KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MULLURKARA P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **12 KOTTAMURY KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MALA P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **13 SREEDHANA KURIES AND LOANS PRIVATE LIMITED, ERINJERI ANGADI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **14 KOTTAKKAL ENTERPRISES, KOTTAMURI P.O., MALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH** - **RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** - **2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR - 680 582.** - **3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, KUTTANALLUR, THRISSUR - 680 014.** - **4 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, VADAMA, THRISSUR - 680 736.** - **5 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR -26.** - **6 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR - 680 586.** - **7 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ANTHIKAD, THRISSUR-680 641.** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 11 |**8**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| |---|---| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR - 680 121.**| |**9**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**SHORNUR, PALAKKAD - 679 121.**| |**10**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**THRISSUR -20.**| |**11**|**INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION),**| ||**VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**R1 TO R11 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 12 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.12254 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BRIGHT KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BRIGHT TOWER, ST. THOMAS COLLEGE, THRISSUR - 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR - 26.**| |**3**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**THRISSUR - 20.**| |**4**|**INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION)**| ||**VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.**| ||**R1 - R4 - SRI. K.V. SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 13 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.13587 of 2014** **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SREE VIDYAPRAKASINI SABHA, KODUGNALLUR, THISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SABHA, P.O. MADAVANA, KODUNGALLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.** - **3 SREE SUSBRAMANIYA SAMAJAM (METHALA) KURIES PRIVATE LTD., P.O.METHALA, KODUNGALLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **4 EBENEZER KURIES PRIVATE LTD., KALLUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **5 ALPHA KURIES AND FINANCE PRIVATE LTD., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **6 YUVADARSAN KURIES PRIVATE LTD., CHITTATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **7 DAWN KURIES PRIVATE LTD., ST. THOMAS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **1** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 14 - **2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTERAR, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680 664.** - **3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, NELLAYI, THRISSUR-680 305.** - **4 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTERAR, THRISSUR-26.** - **5 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, MULLASSERRY, THRISSUR-680 509.** - **6 THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THISSUR-20.** ## **7 INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION), VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.** **BY ADVS. R1 TO R7 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 15 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.14100 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 GENERAL KURIES & LOANS PRIVATE LIMITED, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **2 POPULAR KURIES LIMITED, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **3 DHANAPOSHINI KURIES AMBALLOOR PRIVATE LIMITED, PUDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **4 NAMBOODIRI'S CHITTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, ARIMBOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **5 THE NEW TRICHUR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, KANJANI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, VADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR- 680582.** - **3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR- 26.** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 16 |**4**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| |---|---| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**NELLAYI, THRISSUR- 680305.**| |**5**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR- 680 003.**| |**6**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR- 680641**| |**7**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**THRISSUR - 20.**| |**8**|**INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION)**| ||**VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 035.**| **BY ADVS. R1 TO R8 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 17 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.21568 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**THE PENINSULA CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED,**| |---|---| ||**CHRIST COLLEGE JUNCTION, IRINJALAKKUDA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.**| |**2**|**KOTTEKAD KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED,**| ||**KOTTEKAD, KUTTUR P.O., THRISSUR,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.**| |**3**|**THE ASSYRIAN CHARITIES KURI LIMITED,**| ||**THRISSUR - 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR - 680 582.**| |**3**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,**| ||**KUTTANALLUR, THRISSUR - 680 014.**| |**4**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR - 26.**| |**5**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**THRISSUR - 20.**| |**6**|**INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION)**| ||**VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**R1 TO R6 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY**| W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 18 **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 19 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.21911 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 JANAPATHAM KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, TC-IX/576/35, S-30, SAKTHAN ARCADE, SAKTHAN THAMBURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **2 CHERUPULASSERY CHITS & KURIES PVT. LTD., CHERUPULASSERY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **3 SHAREWEALTH CHITS LTD., THRISSUR-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR-26** - **3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CHERUPPULASSERY, PALAKKAD.** - **4 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR-680582.** - **5 DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THRISSUR-20.** - **6 INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION) VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035. R1 TO R6 - SRI. K.V. SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 20 **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 21 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.21989 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 ALL KERALA ASSOCIATION OF CHIT FUNDS, (A STATE UNIT OF ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CHIT FUNDS, NEW DELHI), STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, ROOM NO.1, 2ND FLOOR, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, GEEVARGHESE BABU. 2 MS GOSRI CHIT FUNDS (P) LTD., PROVIDENCE PLAZA, PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 018. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3 AKHIL CHIT FUNDS, 32/162, APPOLO ROAD, THAMMANAM, KOCHI-682 032, REP. BY PARTNER.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL) SRI.R.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| |---|---| ||**OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM. 682 030.**| |**2**|**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, EDAPPILLY. 682 024.**| |**3**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.**| |W.P.(C) No.2613|of 2014 & connected cases. 22| |---|---| |**4**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**KOLLAM. 691 001.**| |**5**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.**| |**6**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**ALAPPUZHA. 688 001.**| |**7**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**KOTTAYAM.686 001.**| |**8**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), IDUKKI.**| |**9**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**ERNAKULAM.682 030.**| |**10**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**TRISSUR. 680 001.**| |**11**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**PALAKKAD. 678 001.**| |**12**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**MALAPPURAM. 676 505.**| |**13**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**KOZHIKODE. 673 001.**| |**14**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**KANNUR. 670 001.**| |**15**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**WAYANAD. 673 121.**| |**16**|**DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| ||**KASARKODE. 671 121.**| W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 23 - **17 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.** - **18 INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION) VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.** **BY ADVS.** - **R1 TO R18 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 24 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.16091 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ALL KERALA ASSOCIATION OF CHIT FUNDS, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE GENERAL SECRETARY, K.P.GEEVARGHESE, REGISTER NO.ER 501/2008, STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.** **BY ADVS. SRI.DIPU.R SMT.DHANYA BABU SMT.P.A.PRIYA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, BY AND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 3 DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), 2ND FLOOR, CC 40/1017, PERUMPALLY BUILDING, OPPOSITE OF MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE GROUND, ERNAKULAM-682 011.** **BY ADVS. R1 TO R3 - SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2613/2014 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 25 ## **JUDGMENT** **[ W.P.(C)Nos.2613, 3881, 5403, 8363, 8967,** **9979, 11487, 11501, 12254, 13587, 14100,** **21568, 21911 & 21989 of 2014 & 16091 of 2015]** The captioned writ petitions are materially connected challenging the constitutional validity of the notification issued by the State Government dated 18.12.2013, amending the Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012, by substituting Appendix-II, and thereby increasing the Table of Fees. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment. Facts and figures contained in W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 are relied upon for disposal of the writ petitions, wherein the impugned notification is marked as Ext.P3(a). 2. Petitioners are companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, engaged in Chitty business as per the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (in short, 'the Act, 1982'). Pursuant to powers conferred under Sec.89 of Act, 1982, the Government of Kerala, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India formulated Ext.P1 Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012 (in short,'the Rules, 2012'), as per Government notification dated 04.06.2012. The 1[st] respondent is the registering authority of the 1[st] W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 26 petitioner under the Central Act and the 2[nd] respondent is the registering authority of the 2[nd] petitioner. The 3[rd] respondent i.e., the Deputy Registrar of Chitties is the superior authority to 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents and is assigned with certain duties under the Act, 1982, and the 5[th] respondent is the Head of the Department of Registration. 3. Under Ext.P1, the fees payable by the petitioner companies for doing the activities covered under the Central Act were set out, which is produced as Ext.P2. Pursuant to powers given under Sec.89 of Act, 1982, the State Government has amended Ext.P1 as per SRO Nos.1006/2013 and 1007/13 dated 18.12.2013, produced as Exts.P3 and P3(a) respectively. The contention of the petitioners is that, the levy is in the nature of fees and is without any _quid pro quo,_ and is therefore, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and invalid and unconstitutional. It is the further case of the petitioners that the activities of the petitioners are governed by the Act, 1982, which also spells out the commission that can be earned by petitioners as per Sec.21(b) of Act, 1982. It is further submitted that, in view of the arbitrary increase in the fees payable by the petitioners, W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 27 according to the petitioners, it would be impracticable for the petitioners to continue to do the business. That apart, it is pointed out that, under the Act, there is bar against the petitioners from indulging in any other business or profession. Therefore, the only source of revenue are from the chitty business conducted. A comparative chart showing the existing and revised rates, and percentage of increase is produced as Ext.P4. These are the basic background facts put forth by the petitioners to contend that the increase made as per Ext.P3(a) is unconstitutional, there being no _quid pro quo_ . 4. A statement is filed for and on behalf of the State, i.e., the 4[th] respondent in the writ petition. Among other contentions, it is stated that, as per the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, on commencement of a Chitty, Government was receiving a total of 5% of the Chit Fund amount, which includes 2% of the Chit amount as Registration fees and 3% as 'variola' filing fees. Accordingly, Government had to get an amount of Rs.5,000/- for a Chit with Price money of One Lakh Rupees. But, as per the Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012, Government is only getting a total amount of Rs.760/from a Chit of Rs.One Lakh including Rs.10/- as filing W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 28 fees and Rs.750/- for issuing certificate for commencement of the Chit. Therefore, as per the fees prescribed under the Chit Fund Act, 1982, a huge loss is sustained to the Government when compared to the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975. The apex court had invalidated the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 and the Central Government had given effect to Act, 1982 in Kerala on and with effect from 30.04.2012, and it is in these immediate circumstances, the Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012 was notified. The rates of fees prepared for the Act, 1982 was _in toto_ included in the Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012. 5. It is also stated that, the fee structure which was actually prepared for the Chit Fund Act, 1982 long back was adopted in the Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012, so as to comply with the directions in the said judgment. The Reserve Bank of India has given consent for the revision of Chitty fees, and therefore, the State Government is empowered to prescribe and revise fees under Sections 62, 63 and 89 of the Act, 1982, and Rules 31 and 44 of the Rules, 2012. Further, it is stated that, the Tamil Nadu Government as per notification dated 28.09.2011, revised the chitty fee in exercise of powers conferred under Act, 1982. The W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 29 fees fixed by the Tamil Nadu Government is much higher than the revised fee structure fixed as per Ext.P3(a) by the Kerala State. 6. A detailed counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of the State Government, narrating the history of the Chitties Act, 1975, the circumstances under which the Chitties Act, 1975 was struck down by the apex court and also justifying the action of increasing the fees. It is also pointed out that, there is clear _quid pro quo,_ since as per the Act, 1982 and the Rules, 2012, the State Government is duty bound to maintain sufficient officers in order to control and regulate the Chitty transactions within the State. Along with the counter affidavit, permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India is produced as Ext.R4(a), wherein, the State Government is given necessary sanction to finalize the Rules for being notified. Therefore, it is contended that, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in fixing the fees as per the amendment. 7. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioners, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. 8. I have heard Sri. K.B. Gangesh and Sri. Anil W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 30 D. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. K.V. Sohan, learned State Attorney appearing for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 9. In order to exactly identify the contentions put forth by the petitioners in the captioned writ petitions, it is appropriate and relevant to extract the comparative chart produced along with the writ petition viz., Ext.P4, which read thus: ## **- APPENDIX II TABLE OF FEES** ||**APPENDIX-II TABLE**|**OF FEES**||| |---|---|---|---|---| |**Ref**|**Particulars**|**Pre-** **revised**|**Revis** **-ed**|**%** **Increase**| |I.1(a)|To offer immovable property -within the jurisdiction of the AR|25|100|400| |I.1(b)|To offer immovable property -outside the jurisdiction of the AR|25|100|400| |I.2|For inspection of immovable property.|25|100|400| |II.3|To apply for sufficiency certificate|0|100|100| |III.4|To apply for substitution of security|0|500|500| |IV|For application for previous sanction|25|100|400| |V|For filing of declaration u/s(1) of S.9.|0|30|100| |VI|For certificate of commencement|0|2% of Chit|Steep| |VII.1|For filing of Chit agreement|10|1% of Chit|Steep| W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 31 |VII.2|For alteration in chit agreement|10|1% of chit|Steep| |---|---|---|---|---| |VIII|For filing certificate u/s(2) of Sec.10|2|20|1000| |IX|For filing of minutes|2|20|1000| |X|For application for fund appropriation|0|1000|1000| |XI(a)|For filing removal of subscriber|2|50|2500| |XI(b)|For filing substitution of subscriber|2|50|2500| |XI(c)|For transfer of rights of Foreman|2|50|2500| |XI(d)|For transfer rights of subscriber|2|50|2500| |XI(e)|For assent for withdrawal of Foreman|2|50|2500| |XI(f)|For assent for termination of chit|2|50|2500| |XI(g)|To protest against orders of Registrar|2|50|2500| |XI(h)|To be present in the draw of chit|2|50|2500| |XIII (1)a|For Audit by Chit Auditor up to 5000|25|100|400| |XIII (1)b|For Audit by Chit Auditor up to 15000|60|200|350| |XIII (1)c|For Audit by Chit Auditor up to 25000|120|300|250| |XIII (1)d|For Audit by Chit Auditor up to 50000|200|500|250| |XIII (1)e|For Audit by Chit Auditor up to 100000|500|1000|200| |XIII (1)f|For Audit by Chit Auditor in any other case|1000|2000|100| |XIII.2|For filing Balance Sheet certified by CA|0|500|500| W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 32 |XIII.3|For audit at Foreman's premises|0|200|200| |---|---|---|---|---| |XIV|For inspection of records for each year|3|10|333| |XV|For copy of extract of records|1|10|1000| |XVI|For certified copy of order by Registrar|1|10|1000| |XVII|For every appeal to the State Govt.|10|500|5000| |XVIII (a)|For winding up of chit up to 5000|0|200|200| |XVIII (b)|For winding up of chit above 5000|0|400|400| |XIX|For approval to open new place of office.|0|5000|5000| |XX|For application against winding up|0|100|100| |XXI|For application for injunction order u/s 52|0|100|100| |XXII|For application for legal actions u/s 55|0|100|100| |XXIII|For application for attaching property|0|1000|1000| |XXIV|Fee for adjournment|0|100|100| |XXV|Fee for application for interim stay|0|100|100| |10. Relying upon the comparative chart, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the increase effected is exorbitant. That apart, arguments are advanced with specific reference to Sl.Nos.VI, VII.1 and VII.2 in the chart. So far as the certificate of commencement is concerned, there was no||||| W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 33 fee in accordance with the Appendix as it originally stood, whereas as per the amended Rules, 2% of Chit amount is levied. Likewise, for filing of Chit agreement, an amount of Rs.10/- was being charged, which is increased to 1% of Chit amount. So also, for alteration in Chit agreement, Rs.10/- was the existing charge and as per the amendment, 1% of chit amount is to be paid. The said aspects will be dealt with hereafter separately. 11. So far as the other increases are concerned, I am of the considered opinion that, it cannot be said to be on the higher side or there is steep increase, taking into account the various factual, economic, political and other social circumstances, for e.g., there was steep increase of the salary and allowances of the Government employees as well as others. So also, the prices of various commodities like gold, silver, petrol and other allied articles have gone up and there was clear inflation. Which thus means, there was undue increase in the quantity of money in proportion to buying power and there was a progressive increase in the general level of prices. That apart, it is quite clear and evident that the fees that were being charged was very low and meagre, as per the W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 34 Rules, 2012. Therefore, the fees increased in various counts from such a low fees to a standard and reasonable fees to cope with the economic, social, political and other situations cannot be said to be exorbitant, or that there is no _quid pro quo_ . Viewed from that angle, the said circumstances can be very vividly and clearly made out from the comparative chart extracted above. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the amounts under various heads are increased to 100/400/500 and even to 1000 times, but looking at the fees that were existing, in my considered view, the increase cannot be said to be exorbitant or arbitrary. 12. It is contended by learned State Attorney that in accordance with various provisions of Act, 1982, duties and obligations are conferred on the State Government and its officers to regulate and control the Chitty transactions, and for which, the Government is bound to maintain, and is maintaining a full-fledged set up, and therefore, the fees fixed as per the amendment cannot be said to be on the higher side, taking into account various relevant factors. That apart, it is pointed out that, as per the Chitties Act, 1975, 5% of the Chit amount was charged under various ## W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 35 heads, and consequent to the striking down of Act, 1975, Government has suffered loss on account of the fees and is finding it difficult to maintain the office and staff for regulating the Chitty business. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in ' _**Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd.**_ ' [(1995) 1 SCC 655] and specifically to paragraphs 28 to 31, which read thus: “ _**28.** It will be obvious from the above purposes for which the market fee is to be utilised that the said purposes are in furtherance of the object of the Act, viz., to regulate the buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment and proper administration of markets for agricultural produce for the benefit of the agriculturists who are the primary producers of the said produce. The machinery and the facilities for which the market fees are being expended are all necessary to provide the necessary infrastructure to further the object of the Act. But for such infrastructure, the objects of the Act cannot be properly and adequately implemented. The fact that the respondent-Mills may not be the direct beneficiary of anyone or some of the said facilities or does not make use of them does not absolve it from payment of the market fees. The said machinery and the facilities are meant for the benefit of all the buyers and sellers of all the agricultural produce within the market area and it cannot be denied that they are so. It is further difficult to appreciate the contention that in the circumstances, the respondent-Mills is not either directly or indirectly a beneficiary of the said machinery and the facilities as a buyer of the bamboos when the purchase is admittedly made in the market area as pointed out above. In the circumstances, the High Court was in error in holding that there was no_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 36 _evidence of the services rendered by the Committees._ _**29.** In this connection, a reference may be made to Kewal Krishan Puri case. There this Court has upheld the legality of the fees levied for the following purposes stated in the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, viz.,_ _(i) better marketing of agricultural produce;_ _(ii) marketing of agricultural produce on cooperative lines;_ _(iii) collection and dissemination of market rates and news;_ _(iv) grading and standardisation of agricultural produce; (v) general improvement in the markets;_ _(vi) maintenance of the office of the Board and construction and repair of its office buildings, rest-house and staff quarters;_ _(vii) giving aid to financially weak committees in the shape of loans and grants;_ _(viii) payment of salary, travel and leave allowance, gratuity, compassionate allowance, compensation for injuries or death resulting from accidents while on duty, medical aid, pension or provident fund to the persons employed by the Board and leave and pension contribution to government servants on deputation; (ix) travelling and other allowances to the employees of the Board, its members and members of Advisory Committees; (xii) meeting any legal expenses incurred by the Board; (xiii) imparting education in marketing; (xiv) construction of godowns; (xv) loans and advances to the employees and (xvi) expenses incurred in auditing the accounts of the Board. All these purposes are also covered by the present Act._ _**30.** The High Court in the present case, accepted the contention of the writ petitioners before it, i.e., the respondent-Mills herein that so far as the bamboos grown on private land are concerned, they are to be purchased by the State Government in view of the provisions contained in the Van Upaj Adhiniyam. Further, the sale of such bamboos_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 37 _by the Government takes place at various forest depots and hence the requirement of the Act that the agricultural produce shall be sold in the market proper or market area does not apply to the present case. This also applied to bamboos grown on the forest land belonging to the Government. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent-State Government there that the market fee is required to be paid on every agricultural produce brought for sale or sold in the market area was rejected by the Court on the ground that the respondent-Mills did not purchase the bamboos for sale but purchased them for use as its raw material for manufacture of paper. Secondly, there was nothing in the return filed by the State Government to show that any services were rendered to the respondent-Mills in return for the market fees levied on them for the purchase of bamboos which transaction took place at various forest depots. The bamboos were purchased by them not for sale but for being used for manufacture of paper. Although, the Court noted the fact that it is not necessary that each individual trader must be benefited by the services provided, the Court held that it was necessary to justify the levy by proving that some direct or indirect benefit was conferred either on the purchasers or traders of bamboos as a class by the Market Committee. The Court also held that since the State Government’s stand was that the Forest Department would be a trader within the meaning of the Act while selling bamboos and since respondent-Mills are also traders according to the State Government, the sale of bamboos to the respondent by the Forest Department would be a sale by a trader to a trader and in such a case, the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 19 of the Act shall be attracted. That proviso contemplates that in a case of commercial transaction between traders in the market area, the market fee shall be collected and paid by the seller. Hence, according to the High Court, even if it was accepted for the sake of argument that market fee on the sale of bamboos by the State Government to the respondent-Mills was leviable, it was not to be paid to the Market Committee by the respondent-Mills who were the buyers. It was to be collected and paid by the Forest Department which is the seller. Hence, the Market Committees could not require the respondent-Mills to pay the_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 38 _market fee directly to them._ _**31.** We are afraid that on both these counts, the High Court has committed errors. As regards the first ground on which the High Court has set aside the market fee, viz., that the transaction of sale and purchase of the bamboos at the forest depots is not a transaction in the market proper or market yard and hence it is not prohibited by the Act, the High Court has failed to notice the relevant provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act to which a reference has already been made earlier. The provision in terms states that no person shall, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and the bye-laws made thereunder, use any place in the market area for the marketing of the notified agricultural produce or operate in the market area as a market functionary. The exceptions to this provision are mentioned in Section 6(b) itself and the sale of the bamboos at the forest depots which are admittedly in the market areas of one or the other committee, are not covered by any of the exceptions. The prohibition for sale or purchase of the agricultural produce is not only in the market proper or market yard area but in the market area as a whole. So also Section 31, as already pointed out, further provides that no person shall, in respect of any notified agricultural produce, operate in the market area as commission agent, trader, broker, weighman, hammal, surveyor, warehouseman, owner or occupier of processing or pressing factories or such other market functionary except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder. Section 37 requires that every person who buys notified agricultural produce in the market area, shall execute an agreement in favour of the seller in triplicate in such forms as may be prescribed. One copy of such agreement is to be kept in the record of the market committee”._ 14. So also, the judgment of the apex court in ## ' _**Shri Bhagwan Dass Sood v. State of Himachal Pradesh**_ _**and Others**_ ' [(1997) 1 SCC 227] is pressed into service and specifically invited my attention to paragraphs 36 W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 39 to 38 of the judgment, which read thus: “ _**36** . Levy of market fee being essentially a fee and not a tax, such imposition of levy of market fee necessarily inheres in it the essence of quid pro quo between the fees levied and services returned to the payer of such fees. What should be the extent of service rendered to the payers of levy of market fees so as to keep such levy of fees within the bounds of accepted principle of fee involving existence of reasonable quid pro quo has been a vexed question agitated before various High Court including this Court from time to time. Some of the decisions of this Court on this question have been indicated. The legal position regarding constitutional validity of levy of market fee may be summarised as follows :-_ _(i) Existence of quid pro quo is essential for retaining the character of fee in the matter of levy of market fees._ _(ii) Such quid pro quo is not to be reckoned with any mathematical precision with reference to quantum of fees realised by imposition of levy and the percentage of such fees spent for establishing market yards, construction of various infra-structures etc. and providing various amenities as envisaged under the Marketing Act and the Rules framed thereunder for effective implementation of aims and objectives under the Act._ _(iii) The service to be rendered to the payers of market fee must be real and not illusory._ _(iv) Such service must have an objective basis and have a direct link and not to be remote in its effect._ _(v) It is not necessary that imposition of levy is to be effected only on establishment of principal and sub- market yards by completing the infra-structures required for such establishment of market and sub-market yards. Such construction being time consuming and expenditure oriented, it will be sufficient to justify valid imposition of levy if it is demonstrable that after notifying market area, effective steps not in contemplation_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 40 _but in reality have been taken to identify market and sub-market yards and schemes for establishment of such market or sub-market yards have in fact been put to action and the market fees levied and realised are being ploughed back for the advancement of the purpose for which market fees have been levied and realised._ _(vi) In deciding the question of rendering of a real and not illusory service in discharging the obligation emanating from quid pro quo, to levy of market fee, no straight-jacket formulae can be evolved. Fact situation in the matter of establishment of principal and sub-market yards and the practical feasibility of construction of infra-structures, roads, pathways etc. for establishment of such market yards within a time frame and in the light of financial constraints is bound to vary depending on various factors including imponderables. It is, therefore, essentially necessary to take a pragmatic approach to the problems associated with establishing market and sub-market yards with necessary infra-structures etc. and accompanying facilities and amenities to be made available to traders and producers coming to such yards, in order to decide whether concrete steps have been translated into action with reasonable sincerity in implementing the schemes envisaged under the Marketing Act and the Rules framed thereunder._ _**37** . In the instant case, it has been established that the market committee in the district of Solan after notifying market area, has taken real and effective steps to identify various submarket yards and some such yards have been commissioned after constructing essential infrastructures and in respect of some of such yards, tenders have been invited. It is true that the facility of sub-market yards from the town of Kasauli is at some distance. But it should be borne in mind that Solan is a hilly terrain with sparce population. The volume of agricultural produce is also limited because of geographical features of the area. Consequently, volume of transaction in agricultural produce is expected to be much less than that in good agricultural belts in the plains. Such factors are undoubtedly operating as constraints in establishing submarket yards with necessary infra-structures within a proximate distance from the place of_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 41 _business of various traders in the said district. Simply on such account, the appellant cannot be permitted to contend that he has no obligation to pay levy of market fee for failure to comply with the obligation of quid pro quo for imposition of levy of market fee. The appellant has failed to establish that there is total lack of quid pro quo vis-a-vis imposition of levy of market fee in the district of Solan and also in the town of Kasauli._ _**38** . In our view, the appellant being admittedly a dealer under Section 2 (i) of the Act was required to take a licence. The question of liability to pay levy of market fee is to be decided on the basis of actual business activities of the appellant with reference to agricultural produce involved in such business activities. If in respect of some agricultural produce the appellant has no liability of market levy in view of single point levy, it is for the appellant to establish such claim with reference to records. It is unfortunate that the appellant has not obtained licence despite reminder. The appellant has successfully prevented the action on the compliant made against him for not taking the licence under Section 4 (3) of the Markets Act by moving the writ petition before the High Court and raising untenable contentions in such writ petition. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. This appeal is dismissed with cost assessed at rupees ten thousand only._ 15. So also, the judgment of the apex court in ' _**M/s. Dewan Chand Builders & Contractors v. Union of**_ _**India and Others**_ ' [(2012) 1 SCC 10] is brought to my notice and learned counsel has relied upon paragraphs 20 to 22 of the said judgment, which read thus: “ _**20** . At this juncture, we may also deal with the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, since there exists no 'quid pro quo' between the payer (contractors) of the fee and the ultimate beneficiary (workers) of the services rendered, the said levy is in fact a_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 42 _tax. While it is true that 'quid pro quo' is one of the determining factors that sets apart a 'tax' from a 'fee' but the concept of quid pro quo requires to be understood in its proper perspective._ _**21** . A Constitution bench of this Court in Kewal Krishan Puri and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., while dealing with provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, held that the element of quid pro quo must exist between the payer of the Fee and the special services rendered. Taking note of the well recognized distinct connotations between 'tax' and 'fee', the Bench observed that a 'fee' is a charge for special service rendered to individuals by the Governmental agency and therefore, for levy of fee an element of quid pro quo for the services rendered was necessary; service rendered does not mean any personal or domestic service and it meant service in relation to the transaction, property or the institution in respect of which the fee is paid. A significant principle deduced in the said judgment was that the element of quid pro quo may not be possible, or even necessary, to be established with arithmetical exactitude but even broadly and reasonably it must be established, with some amount of certainty, reasonableness or preponderance of probability that quite a substantial portion of the amount of fee realized is spent for the special benefit of its payers. Each case has to be judged from a reasonable and practical point of view for finding an element of quid pro quo._ _**22** . In Sreenivasa General Traders and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., a Bench of three learned Judges, analysed, in great detail, the principles culled out in Kewal Krishan Puri (supra). Opining that the observation made in the said decision, seeking to quantify the extent of correlation between the amount of fee collected and the cost of rendition of service, namely: "At least a good and substantial portion of the amount collected on account of fees, may be in neighbourhood of two-thirds or three-fourths, must be shown with reasonable certainty as being spent for rendering services in the market to the payer of fee" appeared to be an obiter, the Court echoed the following views insofar as the actual quid pro quo between the services rendered and_ ## W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 43 _payer of the fee was concerned:_ _"The traditional view that there must be actual quid pro quo for a fee has undergone a sea change in the subsequent decisions. The distinction between a tax and a fee lies primarily in the fact that a tax is levied as part of a common burden, while a fee is for payment of a specific benefit or privilege although the special advantage is secondary to the primary motive of regulation in public interest. If the element of revenue for general purpose of the State predominates, the levy becomes a tax. In regard to fees there is, and must always be, correlation between the fee collected and the service intended to be rendered. In determining whether a levy is a fee, the true test must be whether its primary and essential purpose is to render specific services to a specified area of class; it may be of no consequence that the State may ultimately and indirectly be benefited by it. The power of any legislature to levy a fee is conditioned by the fact that it must be "by and large" a quid pro quo for the services rendered. However, correlationship between the levy and the services rendered (sic or) expected is one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude. All that is necessary is that there should be a "reasonable relationship" between the levy of the Fee and the services rendered."_ Relying upon the judgments, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, there is no _quid pro quo_ for levy of the enhanced fees, since no service reasonably equal in measure is rendered by the Government. 16. On the other hand, learned State Attorney has invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in ' _**Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Commercial**_ _**Taxes & Religious Endowments Department and Others v.**_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 44 _**Sree Murugan Finance Corporation Coimbatore and Others**_ ' [(1992) 3 SCC 488], and specifically to paragraphs 12 to 16 and canvassed for the proposition that the State Government is maintaining a Department for regulating and controlling the Chitty transactions for protecting the larger public interest, failing which, there would be umpteen number of problems faced by the public at large. Paragraphs 12 to 16 of the judgment read thus: _“_ _**12** . The High Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCR 1217 : (AIR 1980 SC 1008), wherein it was observed that a substantial portion of the amount collected on account of fees, must be shown with reasonable certainty as being spent for rendering services to justify the quid pro quo which is a distinguishing feature of "fee" from "tax"._ _**13** . This Court in Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 353 : (AIR 1983 SC 1246) considered Kewal Krishan Puri's case and observed as under:-_ _"The decision in Kewal Krishan Puri case does not lay down any legal principle of general applicability. The observation made therein seeking to quantify the extent of correlation between the amount of fee collected and the cost of rendition of service, namely, "At least a good and substantial portion of the amount collected on account of fees, may be in the neighbourhood of two-thirds or three-fourths, must be shown with reasonable certainty as being spent for rendering services in the market to the payer of fee", appears to be an obiter. It was not intended to lay down a rule of universal application but it was a decision which must be confined to the special facts of that case."_ _**14.** This Court in several judgments over a period of 40 years has authoritatively crystalised the contradistinction between "tax"_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 45 _and "fee". The judgments of this Court in Commr. of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirthya Swamiyar, 1954 SCR 1005 : (AIR 1954 SC 282); H. H. Sudhandara v. Commr. for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, (1963) Suppl 2 SCR 302: (AIR 1963 SC 966); Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1961) 2 SCR 537: (AIR 1961 SC 459); H. H. Swamiji v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, (1980) 1 SCR 368 : (AIR 1980 SC 1); and Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Trichur v. State of Kerala, (1982) 1 SCR 519 : (AIR 1981 SC 1863) were considered by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mohd. Yaseen, (1983) 2 SCR 999 : (AIR 1983 SC 617), wherein the Court speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. held as under (at pp. 620-21 of AIR):_ _"What do we learn from these precedents? We learn that there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee, though broadly a tax is a compulsory exaction as part of a common burden, without promise of any special advantages to classes of tax-payers whereas a fee is a payment for services rendered, benefit provided or privilege conferred, compulsion is not the hall-mark of the distinction between a tax and a fee. That the money collected does not go into a separate fund but goes into the consolidated fund does not also necessarily make a levy a tax. Though a fee must have relation to the services rendered, or the advantages conferred, such relation need not be direct; a mere causal relation may be enough. Further, neither the incidence of the fee nor the service rendered need be uniform. That others besides those paying the fees are also benefited does not detract from the character of the fee. In fact the special benefit or advantage to the payers of the fees may even be secondary as compared with the primary motive of regulation in the public interest. Nor is the Court to assume the role of a cost accountant. It is neither necessary nor expedient to weigh too meticulously the cost of the services rendered etc. against the amount of fees collected so as to evenly balance the two. A broad correlationship is all that is necessary. Quid pro quo in the strict sense is not the one and only true index of a fee; nor is it necessarily absent in a tax."_ _**15** . In Mohd. Yaseen's case (AIR 1983 SC_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 46 _617), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi enhanced the slaughtering fee in respect of two categories of animals by eight fold. Some Butchers of the city questioned the revision of rates on the ground that the proposed enhanced fee was wholly disproportionate to the cost of services and supervision and was in fact not a fee, but a tax. During the pendency of the writ petitions in the High Court, by virtue of an interim arrangement, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was permitted to collect slaughter fee at double the rates (instead of 8 times) and as a result thereof the Corporation realised a sum of Rs. 4,24,494/-. The budget of the Corporation showed a sum of Rupees 2,56,000/- as the expenditure involved in connection with the slaughter house. The High Court came to the conclusion that even if the original fee was doubled the amount realised would be more than sufficient to meet the expenditure involved and, therefore, there was no reason at all for increasing fee eight-fold and so the proposed fee was not fee but a tax for which there is no legislative mandate. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. This Court clarified the concept of "fee" which we have quoted above. We respectfully agree with the same._ _**16** . The Act and the Rules provide complete mechanism for the control, supervision and regulation of the "chit fund" business in the State of Tamil Nadu. No person can start or conduct any "chit" unless he registers the proposed bye-laws in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It is common knowledge that there are large number of subscribers to the "Chit fund" business. The Act and the Rules primarily protect the subscribers and the process help the proprietors to run the "chit fund" business to their advantage. There are elaborate provisions under the Act and the Rules providing investigation into the functioning of the said business. The scheme of the Act and the Rules as detailed in the earlier part of the judgment shows that there is effective supervision and control at every stage of the functioning of the "chit fund" business. The High Court grossly erred in holding that the number of the subscribers or the instalments has no nexus with the registration fee. Every subscriber has to enter into an agreement with the Foreman who_ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 47 _conducts the business on behalf of the proprietors. The object of the Act/ Rules obviously is to protect the interest of the subscribers. More the subscribers more burden on the authorities under the Act/ Rules and as a consequence more fee is required to meet the expenditure. It is no doubt correct that after registration of byelaws fees are payable under Section 53 of the Act for the performance of various other functions by the Registrar and his staff, but that is justified in view of the scheme of the Act. The expectation of winning a draw or a bid at the auction and becoming rich over-night lures the lower-middle class and the poor to subscribe to the chit fund out of their savings or even by borrowing money. In such a situation apart from regulatory measures it is necessary to have strict control and supervision over the "chit fund" business. The Act and the Rules are operating with that objective. The counter-affidavit filed by the State before the High Court justified the enhancement of the registration fee inter alia on the following grounds 11985 (1) Mad LJ 474, Para 23]:_ _"........ Considering that in respect of chits of longer duration and larger number of instalments, greater amount of service had to be rendered in that, more minutes etc., were filed, it is equitable and fair to fix the fees for registration of bye-laws with regard to number of instalments or duration of chits. The fees were revised taking these facts into consideration. It has also to be verified whether the Foreman has taken proper security for future payment of subscription from the prized subscriber, whether proper receipts were obtained for the payment of prize monies and on due dates, if not whether the prize amount has been deposited in a Bank as required by the Act by verifying receipts of deposit etc. The extracts filed in respect of removal, substitution and assignment etc. have also to be verified and in respect of higher chit amounts in long term chits for longer duration these transactions will be more and they impose greater responsibility on the Chit Registrar. The work connected with watching the filing of various documents by the Foreman on the due dates and in proper form also takes considerable time.......”._ W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 48 The judgment of the apex court in ' _**Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others v. Mohd. Yasin & Others**_ ' [(1983) 3 SCC 229] is also brought to my notice to canvass the very same proposition. 17. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. In my considered view, as I have pointed out earlier, and also going through the provisions of Act, 1982, various duties and obligations are imbibed on the State Government to control and regulate the Chitty business. Each and every Chit will have to be registered and at various stages of the Chitty transactions, interference of the officials are required right from Sec.4 of Act, 1982 onwards. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government is not rendering service in the field of Chitty transactions. The Government is expending huge amounts by way of salary and other service benefits to the employees, and unless and until necessary and required fees is imposed, Government will not be able to provide necessary machinery for the purpose of regulating and controlling the Chitty business. So also, Act, 1982 mandates that a Chitty can be conducted by the Foreman only in accordance with Act, 1982. It was with the intention of protecting the larger interest of public, W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 49 as is envisioned under Act, 1982, the Rules are promulgated in the year 2012 by the State Government. Moreover, buildings and other infrastructure are provided by the Government for the maintenance of the Department. 18. Thereupon, the State Government could realize that unless and until sufficient and necessary fees is charged, they will not be able to manage and regulate the Chitty business in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1982. Therefore, it cannot be said that the increase of fees is in any way arbitrary or illegal or there is no _quid pro quo_ , since clear services are rendered by the Government. However, as per Entry VI, VII.1 and VII.2 in the chart demonstrated above, the fees is charged on percentage basis. To cite an example, for a Chitty of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1 Crore conducted by Foreman, the functions and duties discharged by the Government are one and the same. However, the difference in the fees thereby charged for the typical nature of duties discharged by the Government on percentage basis, has no co-relation and reasonable nexus. So also, by charging the fees percentage-wise, the Government is almost becoming a partner of the Chitty business conducted by the ## W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 50 Foreman, and it has no basis and reasonableness. 19. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, the hike in fees for issuing Certificate of commencement, filing of Chit agreement and alteration in Chit agreement on percentage basis cannot be sustained. True, the Government is at liberty to charge reasonable fees on that counts also, as per the variant in Chitty conducted. Therefore, I quash the fees charged on percentage basis, as specified above, however, leaving open the liberty of the State Government to carry out suitable amendment imposing any reasonable fees in accordance with law. Which thus means, there is no arbitrariness or illegality, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with regard to the increase in other fees as per the amendment. The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent. ## **Sd/-** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **JUDGE** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 51 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2613/2014** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE S.R.O 397/2012 DATED 04-06-2012 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE (APPENDIX II) EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE S.R.O. 1006/2013 DATED 18-12-2013 EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE S.R.O 1007/2013 DATED 18-12-2013 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE REVISED RATES** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 52 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3881/2014** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF S.R.O 397/2012 DTD 4/6/2012 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE (APPENDIX II) EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE S.R O 1006/2013 DTD 18/12/2013 EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE S R O 1007/2013 DTD 18/12/2013 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE REVISED RATES** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 53 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5403/2014** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF S.R.O.397/2012 DATED 4.6.2012. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE (APPENDIX II). EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE S.R.O.1006/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE S.R.O.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE REVISED RATES. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R4(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R4(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R4(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES. EXHIBIT R4(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 54 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8363/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R4(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R4(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES. EXHIBIT R4(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 55 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8967/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R4(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R4(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES. EXHIBIT R4(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 56 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9979/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R4(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R4(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES. EXHIBIT R4(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 57 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11487/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.04.2014 IN W.P. (C) NO.9979/2014.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 58 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11501/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.9979/2014.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R4(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R4(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES. EXHIBIT R4(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 59 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12254/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R4(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R4(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES. EXHIBIT R4(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 60 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13587/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.9979/2014. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R4(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R4(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R4(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES. EXHIBIT R4(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 61 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14100/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.9979/2014. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R4(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R4(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R4(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES. EXHIBIT R4(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 62 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21568/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.9979/2014.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R1(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R1(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES.** **EXHIBIT R1(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU. EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF COMPARATIVE TABLE. EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY RBI DATED 15.05.2013.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 63 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21911/2014** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT UNDER THE KERALA CHIT FUND RULES, 2012 AS APPENDIX II. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO.1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PREREVISED RATES, REVISED RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE BETWEEN EXTS. P1 & P2. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.9979/2014.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(A) LETTER NO.DFC(COC) 405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.01.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R1(B) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS. EXHIBIT R1(C) COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES.** **EXHIBIT R1(D) COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** **EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF COMPARATIVE TABLE. EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY RBI DATED 15.05.2013.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 64 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21989/2014** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF S.R.O. 397/2012 DATED 4.6.2012. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FEES PAYABLE (APPENDIX II). EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE S.R.O. 1006/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE S.R.O. 1007/2013 DATED 18.12.2013. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE REVISED RATES. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.DFC(COC)405/50(14)/87-88 DATED 28.1.1988 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA.** - **EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS.** - **EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF COMPARISON OF EXPENSES OVER INCOME IN CONDUCTING CHIT BUSINESS, KERALA AND TAMIL NADU RATES.** - **EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF COMPARISON OF FEE IN GRAPHIC METHOD IN CHITTY REGISTRATION AND ALLIED PROCEDURES IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU.** - **EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF COMPARATIVE TABLE. EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY RBI DATED 15.5.2013.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2014 & connected cases. 65 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16091/2015** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE FORM VIII. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE SAMPLE COPY OF THE KURI SECURITY AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 21(1)(E). EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.13721/2015 DTD.8.5.2015.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **St/-**