IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 368 of 2006() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.970/2005 Dated 12/01/2006 AND JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31274/2005 Dated 09/11/2005 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- M/S. VENAD RUBBERS, CHANGANACHERRY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.E. JOSEPH, AGED 77, S/O. EAPEN. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.ARUL KUMAR.P RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION BRANCH OFFICE, M.C. ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION BRANCH OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K.MEERA. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, KFC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 368 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this, the 2nd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. It is not in dispute that the surviving dispute is only with regard to the one percent to be paid by the appellant by way of collection charges. It is not in dispute that the amount remitted as per One Time Settlement Scheme(OTS) offered by the Kerala Financial Corporation is after initiation of the recovery proceedings. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that in view of Annexure A12 order, the appellant is liable to pay 7.5% of Rs.5 lakhs paid prior to 2008 over and above the one percent on the amounts paid after Annexure A11 Government Order. We are afraid this contention cannot be appreciated. Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules permits collection charges. Under Rule 5(2) it is stated that the collection charges shall be deducted from the amount recovered and WA No. 368/06 -:2:- the balance alone can be payable. In the instant case, the revenue recovery authorities have not recovered any amount from the appellant and therefore that rule will not apply. Annexure A11 in fact is an amendment to the Rule providing for situations where the settlement is made after initiation of recovery proceedings. In such circumstances it has been clarified in the amended rule that even if payment is made directly to the requisitioning authority, if the same is after the initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings, the liability by way of collection charges is only one percent. Therefore, we make it clear that the liability of the appellant is only to pay one percent of the total amount paid by way of OTS. 3. In view of Annexure A11 dated 24.4.08, we dispose of the writ appeal as follows: On the petitioner complying with Annexure A11 order by paying the one percent of the amounts paid after the revenue recovery notice towards collection charges within a month from today, the entire account will be treated as closed. Since it is reported that the other dues have been paid under the OTS WA No. 368/06 -:3:- Scheme, the documents will be returned to the petitioner on such payment and the certificate regarding non-liability on that account will also be issued. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. Kurian Joseph, Judge. ttb