JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to permit the registration fee to be paid through NEFT/RTGS facility or any mode other than cash payment as being done for receiving stamp duty.” 2. In effect, the petitioner has highlighted the difficulty faced by him in registration of documents in the State of Kerala inasmuch as the registering authorities are insisting the persons who come to the registration office for the purpose of registration, to pay registration fee in case. Under the Registration Act, 1908, 2% of the total sale consideration is to be paid as registration fee and the same is to be paid in cash since RTGS facility is not yet available for payment of registration fee. Section 26(2)(vi) and (vii) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 mandates that case withdrawal from bank account over the counter shall be restricted to Rs.10,000/- per day subject to an overall limit of Rs.24,000/- a week and there is no restriction on the use of any non-cash method of operating the account of a person, including cheques, demand draft, credit or debit cards, wallets and electronic fund transfer mechanisms or the like. Hence, according to the petitioner, it is not possible to withdraw money in huge denominations for paying the registration fee. In that regard, it is prayed by the petitioner that a direction be issued to the respondents to permit registration fee to be paid using NEFT/RTGS facility or any other mode as provided for payment of stamp duty. 3. The second respondent has filed a statement dated 17.1.2017, the relevant portion of which reads thus: “It is submitted that Government of India vide Notification No.S.O.3407(E) of Ministry of Finance, dated 08.11.2016 demonetized Currency Notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- and the same has badly affected the economy of the State in a large scale, since the revenue in land registration have become in the lower level. In the context of demonetization, now the Government of Kerala issued circular dated 26.12.2016 directing all the Sub Registrars to accept registration fee by way of Demand Draft of any nationalized/scheduled Banks. It is also submitted that the department has taken steps to receive registration fees on e-payment. In the context of demonetization, now the Government of Kerala issued circular dated 26.12.2016 directing all the Sub Registrars to accept registration fee by way of Demand Draft of any nationalized/scheduled Banks. It is also submitted that the department has taken steps to receive registration fees on e-payment. In this regard department has launched a pilot project on 05.01.2017 in the Sub Registrar office, Sasthamangalam of Thiruvananthapuram District with technical support of National Informatics Centre (NIC). The department need some more time to implement the said facility to other registration offices in the State. At present registration fees is being collected both by cash and Demand Draft and the grievance of the petitioner is redressed to some extent. E-payment facility will be implemented in the department within one month after verifying the feasibility of the pilot project launched in the department.” 4. The above statement is duly signed by the Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram. The contents of the statement are recorded. The statement clearly reveals that a circular has already been issued on 26.12.2016 directing all the Sub Registrars to accept registration fee by way of demand draft of any nationalized/scheduled bank. The department has also taken steps to receive registration fee on e-payment. In that regard, the department has launched a pilot project on 5.1.2017 in the Sub Registrar’s Office, Sasthamangalam at Thiruvananthapuram with the technical support of NIC. However, the department needs some more time to implement the said facility to other registration offices in the State. Since the petitioner is satisfied with the statement filed by the second respondent and as we also feel that sufficient safeguards are taken by the second respondent, no further direction need be issued in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of recording the statement filed by the second respondent.