IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6131 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.J. DEVASSIA, MOONNUKANDATHIL HOUSE, ARPOOKARA WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PULIMOOTIL SHOPPING ARCADE, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA-685584. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P.SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R4 S.C.SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 6131 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Since the petitioner committed defaults in payment, recovery steps were taken against him. Thereupon he applied for the benefit of a one time settlement scheme. The request was accepted by the Corporation and the petitioner was permitted to settle the entire liability by availing of the benefit of one time settlement scheme. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 the Corporation intimated the 3rd respondent about the settlement of the liability. However, when the petitioner sought N.O.C. from the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent replied by Ext.P2 requiring the petitioner to remit collection charge of 5% of the arrear collected and demand notice fee as per rule. It is in this context, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader. 3. From the facts stated above, it is evident that it was pursuant to the one time settlement scheme, the benefit of which was extended to the petitioner and availed by him, that amounts were realized. This Court has already accepted the position that when the payment is made under the WPC 6131/08 -2- scheme of one time settlement and that the amount was not recovered through the revenue recovery authorities, the defaulter cannot be liable to pay collection charges. Therefore, the stand taken by the 3rd respondent cannot be upheld and for that reason, I quash Ext.P2. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to issue N.O.C. without insisting on the payment of collection charges and demand notice fee. Antony Dominic, Judge. mn.