IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 11406 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KOMALAM STUART, W/O.LATE V.R.STUART, CMC-9, "SWAMY NIWAS', CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CHIEF MANAGER, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 & R2 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.11406 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is seeking a direction to release the security documents detained by the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) in spite of payment of the entire amounts due from the petitioner to the KFC on the ground that the petitioner is liable to pay collection charges due to the Revenue Authorities also. The contention of the petitioner is that the entire amounts due to the KFC were paid directly to the KFC by availing of the benefit under the OTS Scheme and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay any collection charges. 2. On 6.6.2008 I had passed the following order: “Govt. Pleader seeks further time. Post after two weeks, within which time the Govt. Pleader shall obtain instructions as to what the Revenue Authorities have done for recovering the amount, which was later paid by the petitioner directly to the KFC by availing of OTS benefit.” Pursuant to the above direction, the Deputy Tahsildar (R.R.), KFC has filed a statement in which it is stated that they have not only issued notices, but also brought the unit of the petitioner to sale and realised an amount of Rs.1,81,000/-. Thereafter a van w.p.c.11406/08 2 belonging to the confirmed defaulter has also been attached and sold. It is after complying with all these procedures that the petitioner has settled the loan account with the KFC by paying the amounts as per the OTS Scheme. According to the learned Government Pleader, such payment would not absolve the petitioner from payment of collection charges as provided in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act in so far as apart from issuing a Revenue Recovery notice, substantial amounts were also realised by using the machinery of the Government, for which only realisation of collection charges are provided for in the Revenue Recovery Act. Further the payment directly to the KFC also, being paid after the revenue recovery proceedings must be deemed to be pursuant to the Revenue Recovery proceedings, the Government Pleader submits. 3. The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar reported in 2005 (3) KLT 150, in support of the petitioner's case that once the amount is directly paid, no collection charges are due. I am of opinion that that decision is clearly distinguishable. In that decision what had been held is that mere issuing a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act alone would not enable the State to demand w.p.c.11406/08 3 collection charges when the payment is direct. But in this case, apart from issuing a revenue recovery notice, Revenue Authorities had actually initiated proceedings for sale of the property belonging to the petitioner for recovery of the amounts due. A substantial part of the amount was also collected. It is thereafter, that the petitioner has paid off the amounts directly to the KFC. In fact I am of opinion that after requisition is made, the KFC should not have accepted the payment without intimation to the Revenue authorities. In any event, the direct payment also was a direct result of the coercive proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot be absolved from payment of collection charges. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is liable to pay collection charges also in respect of the transaction. If the petitioner has paid collection charges also in addition to all amounts due, respondents 1 and 2 shall release the security documents to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.11406/08 4