IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6477 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.M.KARIM, S/O.M.K.MOHAMMED, MOOKKADA HOUSE, MEKALADY, KALADY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF MANAGER, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FINANCE TOWER, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 6477 OF 2008 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a defaulter to the 1st respondent Corporation. It is stated that he had applied for the benefit of one time settlement and by Ext. P1 that was allowed. The grievance in this writ petition is even for availing the benefit of one time settlement scheme, revenue recovery charges has been demanded in Ext. P1. 2. I have heard the counsel for the Corporation also. It is beyond dispute that the liability is being settled availing of the benefit of one time settlement scheme. If that be so, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to pay collection charges which can be justified only if the recovery is made utilising the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act. In this case since the liability is settled under the one time settlement scheme such demand cannot be justified. 3. Hence, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the W.P.(C) No. 6477 OF 2008 -2- amount due in terms of Ext. P1 excluding collection charges demanded therein is paid by the petitioner, the liability of the petitioner will be settled fully and finally. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-