IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17777 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MR.M.V.ABDUL AZEEZ, "PONOTHATT HOUSE" KALLOR P.O. CHERAKKAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI SRI.T.K.SHAIJ RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE,KALOOR, KOCHI. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR THE REVENUE RECOVERY KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 SRI.I.V. PRAMOD, GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 17777 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter of repayment of loan amount due to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had initiated revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount due. On receipt of the revenue recovery notice, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for benefit of one time settlement scheme and availing of such benefits, the petitioner paid the entire amount due, directly to the 1st respondent. The petitioner's grievance now is that 1st respondent is not releasing the security documents on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the collection charges due to the revenue authorities. According to the petitioner, he is not bound to pay any collection charges, in so far the revenue authorities had not taken any steps to recover the amounts from the petitioner except issuing a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar (2005 (3) KLT 150), in support of his contention that in such circumstances the revenue authorities cannot demand collection charges. W.P.(C).No. 17777 OF 2008 2 2. The learned Government Pleader although admits that apart from issuing any notice to the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery act, the respondents 1 and 2 had not taken any further steps in the matter, would submit that in view of the amendment to the Revenue Recovery Act, making it obligatory on the part of the requisitioning authority to pay collection charges also, once the requisition is made, the petitioner is bound to pay the same. 3. The learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent submits that even if this Court holds that the petitioner is not liable to pay collection charges, the KFC may be absolved from the liability to pay collection charges to the State. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. In view of Bhaskaran's case (supra), I am of opinion that the respondents 2 and 3 cannot now insist on payment of collection charges by the petitioner, in so far as apart from issuing a notice, no further steps had been taken by the respondents 2 and 3, to actually collect the amount from the petitioner. The amendment to the Revenue Recovery Act does not in any way alter the legal position as laid down in W.P.(C).No. 17777 OF 2008 3 Bhaskaran's case. In the above circumstances, I direct the 1st respondent to release the security document to the petitioner forthwith without insisting on payment of collection charges to the petitioner. It is made clear that in so far as the petitioner is not liable to pay collection charges to the respondent, the 1st respondent is also not liable to pay any collection charges to the State. The writ petition is allowed as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-