IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37669 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- B. MOHANAN, PROMOTER, M.S. BRICKS INDUSTRIES, 31/132, KADUVINAL.P.O, VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 37669 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 4th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is mainly against Ext. P3 seeking to realise 'collection charges' in respect of realisation of the amount stated as due, invoking the provisions under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings taken by the respondents contrary to the actual facts and figures were sought to be rectified then and there and as and when the matter was got finalised, the liability was cleared in toto directly to the Ist respondent under which circumstance, no amount is liable to be paid towards 'collection charges' to the revenue authorities . The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Malabar Organics Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [2009(4) KLT 328]. After formulating the relevant questions of law, the same were answered by the Division Bench of this Court, holding that there was no liability to W.P.(C) No. 37669 OF 2009 2 pay the 'collection or service charges', in case the defaulter paid the arrears directly to creditor/party concerned, though it is after issuance of a notice under Section 7 or S.34 of the Revenue Recovery Act. It has been categorically made clear therein, that the liability to pay such charges would arise only in cases where further steps of attachment and sale are effected. However, taking note of the rule position, as embodied under Rule 4, it has also been observed that, in cases where the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act is made to start, the actual expense to the extent of 1% is permitted to be realised in appropriate cases. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P3 notice issued by the respondents seeking to realise various amounts as 'collection charges', ranging from 5% to 7.5% in respect of the different transactions and the different periods is not correct or sustainable. Hence the same is hereby set aside. 4. The second respondent is directed to re-consider the actual extent of liability in this regard, in tune with the law declared by this Court as per the decision cited supra. The W.P.(C) No. 37669 OF 2009 3 proceedings in this regard shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk