IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19456 of 2006(N) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.K.SHAJAHAN, PERUMPALLY VILAYIL VEEDU, NILAMEL P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT. I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTER PRISES LTD, PEROORKADA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), K.S.F.E., KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR .RAJU JOSEPH, ADDL.SC.,KSFE LTD. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.19456 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a Writ of mandamus directing the first respondent/KSFE to extend the benefit of 'OTS' by excluding the collection charges and also to intercept the coercive steps initiated by way of Exts.P6, P6(a) and P6(b) notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was settled between the parties and the entire amount, as demanded by the KSFE, was deposited on 30.04.2008. This being the position, there is absolutely no rationale on the part of respondents, particularly the Revenue authorities to proceed with further coercive proceedings for realization of the collection charges as the amount was never collected by the Revenue authorities by virtue of any coercive proceedings pursued under the Revenue Recovery Act and that the said amount was voluntarily paid by the petitioner pursuant to the settlement reached between the parties, under which circumstance, no such collection charge is liable to be paid by the petitioner, submits W.P.(C) No.19456 OF 2006 2 the learned Counsel. 2. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to the satisfaction of the entire liability to the first and second respondents is not controverted by the said respondents and absolutely no statement or counter affidavit has been filed in the matter. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the third respondent fairly concedes that sustainability of proceedings to realize the collection charges has become final in view of authoritative pronouncement of law as per the judgment passed by this Court and reported in 2009(4) KLT 328 (Malabar Organics Ltd. vs. State of Kerala). 4. As borne by the dictum therein, it has been made clear by this Court, that the collection charges could be recovered in respect of the institutions notified under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, provided the steps taken have led to attachment and sale of the property in question and that mere issuance of a notice under Sections 7 or 34 is not enough. It is also observed therein that, in view of the relevant change in the W.P.(C) No.19456 OF 2006 3 rule position particularly with regard to the Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, only 1% of the amount is permitted as realizable towards collection charges in other circumstances, when the liability is settled voluntarily. This being the position, Exts.P6, P6(a) and (b) cannot have existence any further and they are set aside 5. However, the third respondent is directed to re-examine the position as to whether any further amount is liable to be paid by the petitioner, strictly in conformity with the dictum in the decision cited supra, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within one month and if any liability is still there, on communication of the same to the petitioner, it shall be satisfied within one month thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk