IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31289 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH NJAVALLY MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE MALANADU LATEX (INDIA) PVT.LTD, KAPPADU PO, KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAMPADY VILLAGE, PAZHAYANNUR TALUK, THRISSUR. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR PAZHAYANNUR TALUK, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31289 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The challenge is against demand of 'collection charges' raised by the 1st respondent. The revenue recovery proceedings were initiated with respect to arrears due to the Kerala Financial Corporation. According to the petitioner the entire amount due under the loan account has been settled and paid to the Corporation directly, as evidenced by Ext.P1 judgment. Relying upon the decision in 2009 (4) KLT 328 (Malabar Organics Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala), contention of the petitioner is that there is no liability for payment of collection charges, as far as the recovery proceedings initiated by Kerala Financial Corporation, because the recovery officers concerned are employed by the Corporation itself on the basis of deputation from the service of the State Government. W.P.(C)No. 31289 of 2009 -2- 2. It is evident that the question involved is covered by the above cited decision. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent will take effective steps for lifting the attachment if any effected pursuant to the recovery proceedings. 3. It is made clear that the above judgment will not preclude the 1st respondent from claiming expenses if any actually incurred which will fall within the category of Item No. (i) to (vii) in the Table appended to in Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/