Judgment :- 1. The question is whether the claim that a certain amount said to be payable by the respondent by way of penalty under S.18 (2) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125 can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue under S.23 as public revenue under S.62 of the said Act. The learned judge before whom this contention was raised by the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that it cannot be so recovered and allowed the original petition and quashed the revenue recovery proceedings. 2. It is unnecessary for us to decide in this appeal the question discussed by the learned judge since we are convinced that the same result reached by the learned judge must follow because of the lack of an order which the judge should pass under S 18 (2) imposing the penalty. S.18 (2) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125 is in these terms: "The judge after following the procedure prescribed in S.21, sub-sections (4) and (5), may record a finding as to the valuation of the estate. The Court may direct that the probate or letters of administration be duly stamped on payment to the Collector of the full court fee which ought to have been originally paid thereon in respect of such value and of the further penalty, if the probate or letters is or are produced within one year from the date of the grant, of not more than five times, or if it or they, is or are produced after one year from such date, of not more than ten times, such proper court fee without any deduction of court fee originally paid." 3. Counsel on behalf of the appellant has placed before us the communication addressed by the learned judge to the Collector which is the only authority which had enabled the Collector to take action in the matter. That communication is in these terms: "The letters of administration in the above O. P. was granted by this Court on 13 62. It was produced before this Court on 10 8 64. Hence the deficit court fees and penalty may be realised as provided by S 18 (2) of the Court Fees Act, 1125 " 4. That communication is in these terms: "The letters of administration in the above O. P. was granted by this Court on 13 62. It was produced before this Court on 10 8 64. Hence the deficit court fees and penalty may be realised as provided by S 18 (2) of the Court Fees Act, 1125 " 4. It is clear from S.18 (2) that the judge should determine and direct the further penalty to be imposed which of course must be within the limits mentioned in the section. In other words, the quantification of the penalty must be by the judge depending on the circumstances which are also to be evaluated by the Judge. The Collector has no discretion in this matter. He merely implements the order of the Judge. Here the penalty is taken to be six times the court fee that should have been paid on the application. This decision has been taken up by the Collector and not by the Judge. It follows that the provisions in the Act cannot be utilised for the collection of this amount. 5. In this view, ft is unnecessary to consider the implications of the decision in C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam and another reported in AIR. 1961 SC. 609 relied on by counsel on behalf of the appellant. 6. We therefore dismiss this writ appeal but this dismissal will not preclude further action in accordance with the law being taken. Dismissed.