JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Sri G. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the-State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a following prayers: I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the citation of demand of collection charges dated 8-9-2001 (Annexure No.7). II) Issue a. writ, order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the collection charges of Rs. 8,41 ,168.00 from the petitioner in respect of which recovery proceedings have already been withdrawn. III) (a) Issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation for damaging the reputation of the petitioner through publication of wrong information of arrest of the Petitioner in the newspaper. IV) (b) Award the cost of petition. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that after the recovery proceedings were started, the matter was settled between the petitioner and PICUP under the one time settlement. This fact was made by the Petitioner as well as by the PICUP. 4. Sri Alok Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated at bar that in terms of the one time settlement, the amount under settlement had already been paid to the PICUP and this fact is also not disputed in the present writ petition. 5. The recovery citation has been assailed on the ground that the Additional District Magistrate himself returned the recovery certificate to the PICUP on 17-1-1997 prior to one time settlement and it has been mentioned in the letter dated 17-1-1997 (Annexure No.3) that the District Magistrate has ordered that there are some difficulties in recovering the amount and the recovery could not be made by revenue department, hence, this recovery certificate is being returned to the PICUP and the accounts which. were seized were also released and Additional District Magistrate has also informed to the Commissioner and Secretary- Board of revenue, Lucknow that the Collection charges could not be realized in view of the fact that before realizing the amount the recovery citation was withdrawn by PICUP. 6. were seized were also released and Additional District Magistrate has also informed to the Commissioner and Secretary- Board of revenue, Lucknow that the Collection charges could not be realized in view of the fact that before realizing the amount the recovery citation was withdrawn by PICUP. 6. I have heard learned senior advocate Sri Alok Singh for the petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. for the State and perused the averments made in the writ petition, annexure and counter affidavit filed by the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12315 of 1993, M/s Tarai Foam Pvt. Ltd. Kitcha and another Vs. The Collector, Nainital and others, the copy whereof has been annexed as annexure NO.8 to the writ Petition wherein it was held as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Since recovery certificate issued against the petitioner has already been withdrawn by respondent No.3 - Regional Manager, U.P.F.C, Haldwani, therefore there is no occasion for realizing the collection charges. This being so, the recovery notice relating to collection charges cannot be sustained. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The recovery notice dated 16-11-1991 relating to collection charges contained in annexure S.A. -1 to the supplementary affidavit is hereby quashed. Let a copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges within two days. " 8. The facts of the above said writ petition, which was before the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court and the case in hand are similar in nature and the controversy is also covered. 9. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the revenue authority himself shown in inability to release the amount and the information in this regard was also given by the Additional District Magistrate on the direction of District Magistrate. It reveals from a perusal of the letter, which was sent to the Commissioner/ Commissioner cum Secretary, Board of Revenue that the recovery certificate was, withdrawn by the PICUP. There are no specific averments in the counter affidavit that the revenue authority has started recovery proceedings, and there is no mention to this fact in the letter himself. 10. It reveals from a perusal of the letter, which was sent to the Commissioner/ Commissioner cum Secretary, Board of Revenue that the recovery certificate was, withdrawn by the PICUP. There are no specific averments in the counter affidavit that the revenue authority has started recovery proceedings, and there is no mention to this fact in the letter himself. 10. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent is silent on the point that what efforts have been made by the revenue authority for recovering the amount under recovery citation. 11. In view of the fact that the recovery certificate was withdrawn by PICUP and the inability was shown by the revenue authority himself and no recovery proceedings were initiated. The writ petition is liable to the allowed. 12. The writ petition is allowed and the recovery citation impugned (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. 13. All pending applications stands disposed of accordingly.