IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33669 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S.CHAMATHIL AND FRANKLIN VENTURES PVT.LTD., KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARUVIPURAM ROAD, PERUMPAZATHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695126, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR DR.V.FRANKLIN. 2. DR.V.FRANKLIN, DIRECTOR, CHAMATHIL AND FRANKLIN VENTURES PVT.LTD., ARUVIPURAM ROAD, PERUMPAZATHOOR,NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695126. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (F & A), KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NEYYATTINKARA- 695 121. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R2-3 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR R2-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.33669 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against the steps initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, on the basis of Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 7 and Section 34 of the said Act. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears due in the loan account which was availed by the petitioners from respondents 2 and 3. The loan in question was sanctioned for conducting a tourist resort, to the tune of Rs.900 lakhs. According to the petitioners they had availed only an amount of Rs.3.90 crores which was agreed to be repaid in 28 quarterly instalments. After a moratorium period of two years, recovery steps which is impugned in this writ petition was initiated, since the petitioner had defaulted payment of the quarterly instalments as per the schedule. 2. Pursuant to interim orders issued by this Court on 15.12.2010, the petitioners had effected payment of a total W.P(C) No.33669 of 2010-G 2 sum of Rs.24 lakhs in two instalments. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the default in the loan account stands regularised by payment of the above said amount. Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the instalments due with respect to the quarter ending on December 2010 is still due for payment. However, it is conceded that, if the petitioners make payment of the balance amount in default, they can be permitted to continue payment of future instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 3. In view of the above situation, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioners to continue payment of the instalments in accordance with the original schedule, after paying off the arrears, if any due, within a short time. 4. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to make payment of amounts, if any in default, on or before 20.1.2011. If such payment is made and the default is regularised, the respondents 2 and 3 shall permit the W.P(C) No.33669 of 2010-G 3 petitioners to continue payment of future instalments in accordance with the original schedule. 5. The petitioners rise a further contention to the effect that the demand now raised through Exts.P8 and P9 for payment of collection charges is not sustainable in view of the decision of this Court in Malabar Organics Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2009(4) KLT 328). Going by the dictum laid therein it is evident that, the petitioners are not liable for payment of collection charges except payment of 1% of the amount collected through the revenue recovery steps. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to make payment of the amount of collection charges at the rate of 1%, subject to challenge, which is pending against the above said decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. It is made clear that, in case of any default in payment of future instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps of recovery on the basis of notice already issued. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab //True Copy//