IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7520 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.A.SUBAIR, S/O.P.M.AYAMUTTY, RESIDING AT POTHINGAL HOUSE, PEZHUMKARA, PALLIPURAM PO PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SYNDICATE BANK REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH ,PALAKKAD 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.7520 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to release the documents of title pledged by the petitioner after appropriating the amount kept in the suspense account towards the loan arrears; ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to desist from insisting on the payment of collection charges under the Act as a condition for release of the documents of title pledged by the petitioner; iii) issue such other writ, order or direction as this honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the default was only because of some unforeseen circumstances and pursuant to the benefit of One Time Settlement extended to the petitioner, the liability stands cleared in toto and hence that the petitioner is not liable to pay any 'collection charges', which is now being demanded by the respondent, wrongly retaining the title deeds. It is also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that, by virtue of the law W.P(C) No.7520 of 2010-L 2 declared by this Court as per the decision in Malabar Organics Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2009(4) KLT 328) , the petitioner is liable to pay only 1% of the amount in addition to the cost of process, in respect of the steps taken under the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the issue as to the liability to pay 'collection charges' is now pending consideration before the Apex Court and that the petitioner will have to satisfy the liability in respect of the collection charges, subject to the outcome of the decision to be rendered by the Apex Court as above. Despite completion of the service of notice, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent Bank. However, since the learned Senior Counsel submits that the entire liability of the first respondent Bank stands cleared and the remaining issue is only in respect of the 'collection charges' under the Revenue Recovery Act, in view of the dictum laid down this Court in the decision cited supra, this Court does not find it necessary to keep the matter pending. 4. In the above circumstances, the first respondent is permitted to return the title deeds and such other documents produced by the petitioner in connection with the loan availed, on W.P(C) No.7520 of 2010-L 3 condition that the petitioner satisfies the collection charges at the rate of 1% and the process charges, if any. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that the right of the State/Revenue, to have the collection charges realised will depend upon the decision of the Apex Court, to be made applicable in this case as well. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab