IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 25868 of 2007(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- S.KANNIYAPPAN, S/O.SUBRAMONIA ACHARY, RATHEESH BHAVAN, VIZHINJAM STREET, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR, SMT.K.N.RAJANI. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, THRISSUR-680 020. BY ADVS. MR.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. SMT.ANILA PETER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25868/2007 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT AND DATE OF PAYMENT. P2 AND P2(A):COPIES OF TWO STATEMENTS. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SDT/NTA/1944 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT DTD.9/10/2006. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.28454 OF 2006 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DTD. 29/05/2007. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 7/08/2007. P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 29/11/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).25868/2007 ....................... Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a loan from the KSFE. There was a default in the repayment of the same, though according to the petitioner, substantial portion was actually paid. In June, 2001, petitioner was served with a notice demanding an amount of Rs.2,84,297/- with interest at the rate of 20% and penal interest at the rate of 5%. Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.96,000/-, there upon and he prayed for time to pay the balance amount as also scaling down the rate of interest. Apparently, when the respondent was not prepared to scale down the interest and re- calculate the principal amount, petitioner approached this Court in O.P.No.27772/2002. Respondent was inter alia required to give a copy of the statement of accounts as on 7.6.2006. It seems that Exts.P2 and P2(a) statements were given there upon. Though the amount demanded under Ext.P3, which was a letter issued in consonance with Exts.P2 W.P.(C).25868/2007 2 and P2(a), requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,52,368/- over and above the amount which has already been paid by the petitioner, pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, requiring the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for One Time Settlement, respondent again issued Ext.P6 holding that the petitioner has forfeited his right for One Time Settlement. It is at this juncture petitioner has approached this Court. 2. A statement has been filed by the respondent. It is now conceded that the sole surviving dispute relates to a demand for an amount of Rs.24,177/- raised by the respondent towards collection charges. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. W.P.(C).25868/2007 3 4. A perusal of Ext.P6 and the statement filed by the respondent shows that the demand for an amount of Rs.24,177/- has been arrived at after the respondent unilaterally appropriated certain amounts from the amount remitted by the petitioner, towards what the respondent described as collection charges. It is not disputed that though recovery steps were actually taken, properties were never brought to sale as such. In Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for One Time Settlement after taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs.2.75 Lakhs. Details of the collections charges as such are not mentioned in the statement filed by the respondent. In circumstances where the petitioner has paid the amount due to the respondent by way of principal amount as also interest, and in circumstances where steps under the Revenue Recovery Act did not proceed to a stage of sale of W.P.(C).25868/2007 4 the property, I am of the view that it would not be justified on the part of the respondent to persist with the demand of collection charges. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P6 shall be revised by deleting any amount claimed by the respondent by way of collection charges. If any further amounts are due from the petitioner, he shall pay it on demand and a revised statement of accounts shall be furnished to the petitioner. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs