IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9187 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.SANKARAN, M/S. LAMA RUBBERS, THYKOOTATHIL, KANJIRAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), K.F.C., ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9187 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a defaulter to the respondent Corporation. The application made by the petitioner for the benefit of One Time Settlement has been allowed and according to the Standing Counsel for the Corporation, the petitioner should pay the entire dues before 31.03.08. However, the petitioner submits that after paying Rs.11.5 lakhs, when the petitioner sought release of the documents mortgaged, the Corporation declined the request for want of NOC from the 3rd respondent, who refused to issue the same for non-realisation of the collection charges. Several cases of this nature have come before this Court and it has been held by this Court that in cases where the liability is settled under One Time Settlement Scheme, the 3rd respondent cannot claim collection charges payable under the Revenue Recovery Act. Applying the same logic in this case also, I must hold that as the writ petitioner has discharged the liability under the One Time Settlement Scheme, he has no liability to pay collection charges to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent cannot insist on collection charges for issuance of NOC. In my WPC No. 9187 OF 2008 2 view, in this factual situation, the 1st respondent need not wait for NOC from the 3rd respondent and can release the documents on realisation of the entire amount due under the OTS. Therefore, having regard to the above, I direct that on realising the entire amount due from the petitioner towards OTS, without waiting for the NOC from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent shall release the documents deposited by the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 9187 OF 2008 3