JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) The application, seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, is not opposed by Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent and the delay is, therefore condoned. 2. Heard Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/appellant and Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the New India Assurance Company Limited (petitioner in WPMS No. 2758 of 2018). 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class/SDM, Dehradun dated 02.01.2018; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund Rs. 5,17,411/, illegally realized from the petitioner as recovery charges, along with interest @ 10% per annum from 02.01.2018. 4. Facts, as noted in the order under appeal, are that Smt. Kaushal Gupta and others approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming payment of certain amount against the Insurance Company. Claim No. 48 of 2008 was allowed by the Tribunal, by its order dated 24.01.2010, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,07,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, Smt. Kaushal Gupta and others filed AO No. 110 of 2010 before the High Court; and the awarded amount was enhanced by this Court, by order dated 02.08.2017, and a sum of Rs. 31,95,000/- was awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. The total amount required to be deposited by the Insurance Company, after deducting TDS, was Rs.50,46,342/-. 5. Complaining of non-payment of the said amount, the claimants moved the Tribunal to issue a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 50,46,342/-. A recovery citation was issued directing the Collector, Dehradun to send a notice to the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,46,342/-. The Tehsildar, Dehradun issued a notice on 13.12.2017 fixing 21.12.2017 as the date on which the petitioner should appear before him. The petitioner, however, deposited the entire sum of Rs.51,74,106/- before the Tribunal on 20.12.2017 itself and, consequently, the Tribunal recalled the recovery citation by its order dated 21.12.2017. 6. The petitioner appeared before the Tehsildar on the same day i.e. 21.12.2017, and informed him that the amount had been deposited before the Tribunal, and the recovery citation had been recalled. The Assistant Collector Ist Class/SDM, Dehradun, however, issued letter dated 21.12.2017 requesting the Corporation Bank, Dehradun to attach the Bank account of the petitioner for Rs. 6. The petitioner appeared before the Tehsildar on the same day i.e. 21.12.2017, and informed him that the amount had been deposited before the Tribunal, and the recovery citation had been recalled. The Assistant Collector Ist Class/SDM, Dehradun, however, issued letter dated 21.12.2017 requesting the Corporation Bank, Dehradun to attach the Bank account of the petitioner for Rs. 5,17,411/- towards recovery charges; and the said amount was realized from the Bank. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 7. After considering the judgments of the Allahabad High Court in Mahrajwa and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (order and a Writ (C) No. 56175 of 2011 dated 09.01.2013); and Mirza Javed Murtaza Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur and another, AIR 1983 Allahabad 234, the learned Single Judge opined that the Tribunal had, by its order dated 21.12.2017, accepted the deposit made by the petitioner of Rs. 51,74.106/-; it had directed that the recovery citation be recalled; since the recovery citation was withdrawn and recalled by the Tribunal, the said sum of Rs. 5,17,411/- could not be recovered as charges merely for issuing the citation/notice of appearance, and without making any efforts to recover the amount; and the appellant-respondent had neither any authority to attach the amount nor had they any right to claim Rs. 5,17,411/-. The order dated 02.01.2018 was quashed, and the third respondent was directed to refund Rs.5,17,411/- claimed as collection charges. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 8. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, would contend that the Act permits 10% to be recovered as collection charges for recovery of the amount mentioned in the recovery citation; since payment was only made pursuant to the recovery citation, the appellants are entitled to claim collection charges for issuing the recovery citation to the respondent-writ petitioner; and the learned Single Judge had erred in quashing the order, whereby the appellant had recovered this sum from the respondent-writ petitioner, and in directing refund of the said amount. 9. The collection charges, which the State Government is entitled to collect, is for its efforts in recovering the amount mentioned in the recovery citation. In the present case all that the appellant has done is to issue a notice directing the respondent-writ petitioner i.e. the Insurance Company to appear before the Tehsildar on a particular day. 9. The collection charges, which the State Government is entitled to collect, is for its efforts in recovering the amount mentioned in the recovery citation. In the present case all that the appellant has done is to issue a notice directing the respondent-writ petitioner i.e. the Insurance Company to appear before the Tehsildar on a particular day. Just a day before i.e. on 20.12.2017, the recovery citation had itself been withdrawn by the Tribunal. The said order of the Tribunal dated 20.12.2017, withdrawing the recovery citation, has attained finality. It is only in terms of the recovery citation is the appellant entitled to claim collection charges of 10% of the amount mentioned in the recovery citation. Since the recovery citation has itself been withdrawn by the Tribunal, the question of appellant claiming collection charges, for recovery of the amount mentioned in the recovery citation which was itself withdrawn, does not arise. 10. The learned Single Judge was, in our view, justified in directing the appellant to re-pay the said amount to the respondent-writ petitioner. The scope of interference, in an intra-Court appeal, is extremely limited. Save cases where the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality, no interference is called for. We find no such infirmity in the order under appeal. The Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.