Judgment :- The question which arises in this petition is whether money alleged to be due from the petitioner to the State under an unwritten contract is recoverable by recourse to the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The amount which is over Rs. 65,000/-is claimed by the State from the petitioner as per Ext, P1 order dated 7-10-1969, which says that a sum of Rs. 2/-is payable per quintal of maida and sooji towards supervision charges. This order had been challenged by the petitioner in O. P. No. 3231 of 1972, but unsuccessfully. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed. This Court stated in the appeal that "These matters will have to be investigated and decided upon in other appropriate proceedings. We leave such questions therefore entirely open." Subsequently, the Government by Ext. P4 requested the petitioner to remit the supervision charges within two days and produce the receipted chalan therefor. Apprehending revenue recovery proceedings, the petitioner has once again approached this Court for a direction to restrain the Government from initiating revenue recovery proceedings. Proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, as stated by the Government in the counter-affidavit, appear to have been already initiated, but the petitioner, it is stated, has not received any notice of such proceedings so far. 2- It was admitted by the State in the earlier proceedings in this Court as well as in the counter-affidavit filed in answer to the present petition that no afnounts are. due from the petitioner either under any law or under any written contract. The amounts are alleged to be due by virtue of certain contractual obligations informally entered into between the petitioner and the Government. Admittedly there is no written contract between the petitioner and the Government. The question therefore is whether money alleged to be payable by the petitioner under an oral contract is recoverable by recourse to the machinery of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. No question is urged before me as to whether the amount is recoverable by any other procedure, and I do not therefore express any view on that question. 3. The relevant provision in the Revenue Recovery Act is S.68, which reads: 68. No question is urged before me as to whether the amount is recoverable by any other procedure, and I do not therefore express any view on that question. 3. The relevant provision in the Revenue Recovery Act is S.68, which reads: 68. "Application of the Act for the recovery of certain other dues to Government.- (1) All sums due to the Government on account of quit rent or revenue other than public revenue due on land; all moneys due from any person to the Government which under a written agreement executed by such person are recoverable as arrears of public revenue due on land or land revenue, and all specific pecuniary penalties to which such person renders himself liable under such agreement or contract; all sums declared by any other law for the time being in force to be recoverable as arrear of public revenue due on land or land revenue; and all fees and other dues payable by any person to the Government, may be recovered under the provisions of this Act. 4. Admittedly the amount due is not on account of quit rent or revenue other public than revenue due on land. Admittedly again, the amount is not due under any written agreement, nor is the amount claimed by way of arrears of public revenue due on land or land revenue. This is again not an amount due under any law in force. It is also not a fee. It is, however, submitted by the Government Pleader, that it is 'dues' payable to the Government, bringing into play the last part of sub-section (1), which reads: "all fees and other dues payable by any person to the Government." 5. Since I do not go into the question whether amounts due under an informal contract can be recovered at all by the Government, it is unnecessary for me to refer to many of the decisions cited at the bar, such as K. P. Chowdhryv. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR. 1967 SC. 203); Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR. 1968 SC. 1218); Union of India v. N. K. Private Ltd. (AIR. 1972 SC. 915); and The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh (AIR. 1977 SC. 2149). 6. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR. 1967 SC. 203); Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR. 1968 SC. 1218); Union of India v. N. K. Private Ltd. (AIR. 1972 SC. 915); and The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh (AIR. 1977 SC. 2149). 6. The very fact that written agreements have been specially mentioned under the Section-(written agreements alone are mentioned)-shows that the legislative intent is to make the machinery of the Revenue Recovery Act available for the recovery of debts due under written agreements. Specific reference to written agreements 'is meant to exclude all other contracts. For amounts due under oral contracts evidenced by conductor correspondence, the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be pressed into service. The 'dues' mentioned under the last clause of sub-section (1) of S.68 can therefore be only dues other than contractual dues. 7. In addition to a prayer for direction to the State, the petitioner also seeks to quash Ext. P4, which is only a demand for payment of money. Ext. P4 is not a step taken under the Revenue Recovery Act. If there is a contractual obligation on the part of the petitioner to pay money to the Government, the Government is well justified in demanding payment of the same. It is open to the Government to have recourse to appropriate procedure for the enforcement of its contractual claim. As to how and whether the claim in Ext. P4 can be enforced is a matter on which I do not express any view. Ext. P4 as such is not liable to be quashed. 8. In so far as the petitioner asks for a direction to restrain the Government from initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner, and insofar as it has been admitted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that such proceedings have commenced, I restrain the respondents from continuing the revenue recovery proceedings in respect of Ext. P4. 9. The O. P. is allowed in the above terms. I do not make any order as to costs. Issue carbon copy of this judgment to the State free of cost and to the petitioner on payment of the usual charges.