IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35448 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.T.MAMMAD KOYA, CRESCENT HOUSE, VENGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, KOZHIKODE. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV.SRI.R.S.KALKURA, S.C., KFC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35448 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The issue pertains to liability for payment of collection charges with respect to the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of amounts due in the loan account, availed from the 3rd respondent Corporation. It is admitted case of the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent that, the entire amounts have already been cleared payment on 23.4.2009. The liability regarding payment of collection charges with respect to the revenue recovery proceedings, now stands settled through a Division Bench decision of this court in Usha Mary v. Kerala Financial Corporation and Others (2009 (4) KHC 254 (DB). It is observed in the said decision that with respect to KFC and KSFE, those institutions have their own machinery of recovery, by utilising the service of officers on deputation from the Government and that the entire expenses including salary and maintenance of such establishments are met respectively by the Corporation and the Enterprises. Therefore it is held that there is no justification in realising collection charges from those Corporation or Enterprises, in terms of Rule 5(3) of KRR Rules. W.P.(C).35448/09-A 2 2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government is proposing to file appeal from the above said decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, as the legal position stands settled now, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of collection charges or service charges. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the demand for payment of collection charges/service charges is hereby quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to release mortgage if any and to return the title deeds in deposit treating the loan account as closed. Needless to say that if any expenses is permissible to be recovered in view of the above decision, the petitioner shall make payment of the same. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb