IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 14769 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------- BABY KURIAKOSE, ADVOCATE,OLANGATH HOUSE, P.O.KOLENCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.ASHIM.M.V. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KALOOR,ERNAKULAM. 3. CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KALOOR,ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R4: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R5: DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) K.F.C. ERNAKULAM. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 &5, AS PER ORDER DATED 23.6.08 IN IA NO.7730/08.) BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.14769 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was guarantor for a loan availed of by his friend from the Kerala Financial Corporation. The petitioner offered his property as security for the loan. Since the borrower defaulted repayment of the loan, the KFC initiated revenue recovery proceedings. Ultimately, the petitioner paid off the entire amount by availing of One Time Settlement facility. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that in spite of the same, the security documents are not returned for want of payment of collection charges. The petitioner's contention is that since the amount has been paid directly by availing of benefits under One Time Settlement Scheme, the petitioner is not liable to pay any collection charges to the State and therefore, the KFC cannot demand collection charges from the petitioner for releasing the security documents. The petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court in Bhaskaran V. Sub Registrar [2005(3) KLT 150]. W.P.(c)No.14769/08 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the KFC and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned Government Pleader could not satisfy me that apart from issuing a revenue recovery notice, the State had taken any steps for realisation of the amounts from the petitioner. That being so, the decision in Bhaskaran's case squarely applies to the facts of this case and therefore, the petitioner cannot be forced to pay any collection charges in respect of the proceedings in question. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the KFC raises an apprehension that even if the petitioner is not made liable, the State is likely to demand collection charges from the petitioner, in view of the recent amendment of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act making it obligatory on the part of the Requisitioning Authority to pay collection charges. I am of opinion that the person, against whom the revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated, himself is not liable to pay collection charges the Requisitioning Authority cannot also be made liable for the same. W.P.(c)No.14769/08 3 In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the KFC to release the security documents without insisting on payment of collection charges, if otherwise the KFC is satisfied that all the dues payable by the petitioner are duly paid. The action in this regard shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.14769/08 4