IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12331 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- JOY MARKOSE, S/O.P.I.MARKOSE, PERUMACHERIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIALCORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685 033. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, M.C.ROAD, NEAR YWCA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, KFC FOR R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.12331 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a defaulter in re-payment of loan amounts due to the Kerala Financial Corporation. The Financial Corporation initially initiated revenue recovery proceedings pursuant to which the revenue authorities issued a notice to the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner applied to the KFC for benefits under the One Time Settlement Scheme, which was considered and allowed by the KFC pursuant to which the entire amount was paid and the loan account settled availing of the OTS benefit. Now the respondents are not releasing the security documents deposited by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the collection charges. The petitioner submits that apart from issuing notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, the revenue authorities have not done anything to justify the recovery of collection charges. He relies on the W.P.(c)No.12331/08 2 decision of this Court in Bhaskaran V. Sub Registrar [2005 (3) KLT 150] in support of his contentions. According to him, without having done anything other than issuing a notice the revenue authorities have not justified in demanding collection charges, which is the law laid down in that decision. 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that in view of the subsequent amendment of the Revenue Recovery Act making it incumbent on the requisition authority to pay collection charges if requisition has been made, even when the amount is directly paid later, the petitioner cannot dispute payment of collection charges. I have considered the rival contentions. The amendment does not alter the legal position on the subject covered by the decision in Bhaskaran's Case, which lays down that unless the Government have done anything to recover the amount pursuant to the notice issued, the State is not justified in insisting on payment of collection charges. Therefore, following that decision, I allow this writ petition and direct the KFC to release the security documents to the petitioner, if the petitioner has paid off the entire loan amounts other than W.P.(c)No.12331/08 3 collection charges. I also make it clear that the revenue authorities are also not entitled to proceed against the KFC for the recovery of the collection charges in so far as the Government has not done anything to collect the amount due from the petitioner pursuant to the requisition made by the KFC. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.12331/08 4