IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35661 of 2004(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.S.CHACKOCHAN, S/O.V.P.SKARIA, VALIYAMARAVATHU HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMAMANGALAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. FEDERAL BANK LTD., REP. BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY FOR R3 SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON 26/06/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.35661/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13/06/2003. P2 : COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 15/07/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 02/09/2003. P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/06/2004 IN WPC NO.684/2004. P5 : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01/09/04. P6 : COPY OF JUDGEMNT IN WPC NO.28932/04 DATED 06/10/2004. P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30/11/2004 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT. P8 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 03/12/2004 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT BANK. P9 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 03/12/2004 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 19/10/2004 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. R3(b) : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03/11/2004 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35661 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed for a direction to refund collection charges deposited by 3rd respondent Bank with 1st respondent. According to petitioner, payment was made to the Bank and it was wrong for the Bank to have given collection charges to 1st respondent. It is admitted that payment was made by petitioner after initiation of revenue recovery proceeding by 1st respondent at the instance of the Bank. Petitioner though made payment directly to the Bank under orders of this Court, it is attributable to recovery proceedings. Therefore, the Bank is perfectly justified in making payment of collection charges to the Government, failing which the Bank cannot expect services from the Government, later. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg