Judgment : Petitioner has sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent to receive the keys of PWD quarters No. 255/1, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, without insisting to pay the outstanding arrears of sanitary charges amounting to Rs. 11,620/-. Certain other reliefs are also sought for in the writ petition. 2. Petitioner is a Section Officer working in the High Court of Karnataka. He was allotted PWD quarters bearing No. 255/11, situated at Yelahanka New Town, on 18.5.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner seems to have constructed the house and has shifted to the new house of his own. Thus, the petitioner with a view to surrender the keys of the quarters, approached the 2nd respondent and requested him to accept the keys of the quarters. At the time of surrendering the keys of the quarters i.e., on 16.9.2010, the petitioner had paid the entire water charges and electricity charges in respect of the quarters in question till 16.9.2010 as is clear from the documents vide Annexures –‘A’ and ‘D’. The water charges were being deducted every month from the salary of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has paid licence fee, water charges and electricity charges completely as on 16.9.2010. However, the 2nd respondent refused to accept the keys surrendered by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has to pay Rs. 11,620/- towards sanitary charges by issuing letter/order Annexure – ‘B’ dated 19.10.2010. Hence, this writ petition is filed praying for necessary direction. It is also relevant to note that the water charges and licence fee for the quarters is deducted from the salary of the petitioner for the months of September and October 2010 also. The petitioner has sought for refund of such recovered amount also. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the licence fees, water charges and electricity charges fully in respect of the quarters in question till 19th September 2010. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner requested the respondents to permit the petitioner to surrender the keys of the quarters on 19.9.2010. But, the same is refused by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner is due for a sum of Rs. 11,620/-towards drainage/sewerage charges. 4. The allotment of quarters for government employees is covered by the Karnataka Government (Allotment of Government Quarters) Rules 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short). But, the same is refused by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner is due for a sum of Rs. 11,620/-towards drainage/sewerage charges. 4. The allotment of quarters for government employees is covered by the Karnataka Government (Allotment of Government Quarters) Rules 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short). Rule 5 of the Rules deals with eligibility for allotment of the PWD quarters. The petitioner was allotted quarters as he was eligible for allotment. Such allotment is subject to the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Rules. Rule 9 of the Rules deals with payment of licence fee. As could be seen from Rule 9 of the Rules, the licence fee payable shall be 10% on the gross monthly salary of the allotee or the amount equal to HRA, whichever is more. In the matter on hand, the amount equal to HRA is deducted from the salary of the petitioner every month towards licence fee. Thus, Rule 9 of the Rules is satisfied by the petitioner. Rule 19 of the Rules deals with upkeeping of the house. The said rule mandates that the allottee while in occupation of the house quarters, shall be responsible for the proper upkeep and maintenance of the house/quarters and is liable for damage caused to the building, if any. The allottee shall take care to see that all the bills in respect of supply of electricity and water to the house/quarters are cleared from the month to month. Thus, it is amply clear that the petitioner/allottee is liable to pay the bills in respect of supply of electricity and water. The petitioner has produced ‘No Due Certificate’ issued by the BESCOM, the copy of the certificate is produced at Annexure ‘A’ dated 14.9.2010. The same makes it clear that no due regarding electricity was existing as on 13.9.2010. The petitioner has intimated to the 2nd respondent that he is surrendering the keys of the quarters by writing a letter dated 16.9.2010 and ‘No Due Certificate’ issued by BESCOM was also furnished by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the water charges were being deducted from the salary of the petitioner every month. Thus, it is clear that the licence fee, water charges and electricity charges are fully paid by the petitioner as on 16.9.2010, on which day, the petitioner surrendered the keys. 5. It is not in dispute that the water charges were being deducted from the salary of the petitioner every month. Thus, it is clear that the licence fee, water charges and electricity charges are fully paid by the petitioner as on 16.9.2010, on which day, the petitioner surrendered the keys. 5. However, the 2nd respondent has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 11,620/-as arrears of sanitary charges. The Rules do not contemplate the payment of sanitary charges by the allottee. As aforementioned, Rule 9 of the Rules requires the allottee to pay the licence fees and whereas, Rule 19 of the Rules requires the allottee to pay water and electricity charges. Except those rules, no other rule is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Government Advocate in support of the case of respondent No. 2. Since the petitioner is not required to pay the sanitary charges under the Rules, the 2nd respondent could not have directed the petitioner to pay the sanitary charges which are outstanding since ten years. The State cannot levy more fees or charges than prescribed. The collection of sanitary charges is not contemplated under the Rules 1999. In view of the same, the action of the 2nd respondent in demanding payment of Rs. 11,620/- towards sanitary charges cannot be sustained. 6. As aforementioned, the licence fee and water charges for the months of September and October 2010 are also deducted from the salary of the petitioner though the petitioner has vacated the quarters on 16.9.2010. The deduction of licence fee and water charges for the month of September 2010 may be justified, inasmuch as, the petitioner has vacated the quarters in the middle of the said month. However, the respondents are not justified in deducting the licence fee and water charges from the salary of the petitioner for the month of October 2010. Accordingly, the following order is made: (a) The endorsement vide Annexure – ‘B’ dated 19.10.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 11,620/- towards sanitary charges, stands quashed. (b) The respondent No. 2 shall accept the keys of the quarters from the petitioner forthwith. (c) The licence fee and water charges which are deducted from the salary of the petitioner for the month of October 2010 and November 2010 shall be refunded to the petitioner. 11,620/- towards sanitary charges, stands quashed. (b) The respondent No. 2 shall accept the keys of the quarters from the petitioner forthwith. (c) The licence fee and water charges which are deducted from the salary of the petitioner for the month of October 2010 and November 2010 shall be refunded to the petitioner. (d) Licence fee and water charges in respect of the quarters in question should not be recovered from the salary of the petitioner hereafter. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.