ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. This batch of appeals is directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1107 of 2009 and connected matters, disposed of on 18.08.2009. 3. The first respondent was a defaulter in payment of moneys due to the bank(s)/financial institution(s). The respondent(s)/writ petitioner(s) was/were served with the demand notice(s), inter alia, directing him/them for payment of the amounts due, as well as, collection charges under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”) and Rules framed thereunder. 4. The Court being of the view, that no serious steps had been taken by the Revenue Recovery Officer for realization of the amounts due from the defaulter(s), had directed the State Government to refund the collection charges charged and collected from him/them. Aggrieved by the said order, the matter was carried further in appeal by the State Government. 5. In these matters, none of the parties to the proceedings had laid the required pleaded foundation for questioning the vires of Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules as imperative in law. What was really questioned by the respondent(s)/defaulter(s) was/were only the show cause notice(s) issued for the recovery of the amounts due from him/them, either to the financial institution(s) or to the Bank(s). Ignoring this aspect of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court has proceeded to consider the vires of item (viii) under Rules 4 and 5(1) of the Rules. 6. In our opinion, the first and foremost, in the absence of adequate pleadings and grounds of challenge to the vires of the Rules in the writ petition, the Division Bench ought not to have considered that issue, and given its verdict or opinion. Even otherwise, in our opinion, the High Court has not convincingly substantiated its conclusion that the aforesaid Rules are unreasonable and arbitrary and, therefore, requires to be struck down on the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In our opinion, in these types of cases, the High Court should have taken up the matters individually and decided whether the State was justified in issuing the demand notice(s) for the purpose of collection charges as well as service charges under Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules. 8. 7. In our opinion, in these types of cases, the High Court should have taken up the matters individually and decided whether the State was justified in issuing the demand notice(s) for the purpose of collection charges as well as service charges under Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules. 8. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matters to the High Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. We also request the High Court to take the cases individually instead of clubbing all the matters and look into the facts of each case and take a positive decision on the pleadings adduced by both the parties. 9. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.