IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22184 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MALABAR ORGANIES LIMITED, 10/86, MODADI CALICUT DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR A.VIJAYAN. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 22184 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had availed of financial assistance from the 2nd respondent and other financial institutions. Default was committed and that led to the initiation of recovery proceedings. Finally availing of the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme announced by the 2nd respondent, liability was settled. However, in Ext.P3, a demand was incorporated for payment of collection charges on the amount that was paid under the OTS Scheme. According to the petitioner, since recovery was not effected by employing the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act and as the liability was settled availing of the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, the collection charges is not payable. He is relying on the judgments of this court in Kadeeja Beevi v. Kerala Financial Corporation (1985 KLT 741) and Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar (2005(3) KLT 150) to support this proposition. 2. On facts, it is clear that the amount was not recovered by taking recourse to the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act though recovery steps were initiated against the petitioner. Unless the amount is WPC 22184/08 :2 : recovered employing the machinery under the Act, a defaulter cannot be made liable for payment of collection charges. This legal position is settled by the judgments referred to above. If that be so, in this case, as the liability was settled by the petitioner under the One Time Settlement Scheme, petitioner cannot be made liable for the revenue recovery charges. Now that the petitioner has paid the principal amount due pursuant to the interim order dated 23/7/2008, the liability stands discharged and it is so declared. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp