IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5321 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. P.V.JOLLY, PROPRIETOR, M/S. ST.THRESIAS AREATED WATER & FOOD PRODUCTS, KUNNAPPILLISSERY, PULIYANAM P.O., PARAKKADAVU, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT. MARY JOLLY, W/O. P.V.JOLLY, M/S. PANIKULAM METALS, KUNNAPPILLISSERY, PULIYANAM P.O., PARAKKADAVU, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 5321 OF 2008 H ==================== Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are defaulters to the respondent Corporation. They made an application for One Time Settlement and that was accepted and Exts. P9 and P10 communications were issued. However, this includes the demand that the petitioners should pay revenue recovery charges as well and it is this demand which is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The fact that benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme has been extended to the petitioners is not disputed by the Standing counsel for respondents. Although the petitioners were in default to the respondents, the respondents accepted the offer of the petitioners to settle the liability by OTS and the petitioners were directed to remit amounts directly on or before 28/2/2008. If the petitioners make remittance as above, such remittance cannot be said to be one employing the machinery under the WPC5321 /08 :2 : Revenue Recovery Act. If so, the respondents have no justification to demand collection charges payable under the Revenue Recovery Act for such remittance. Therefore, I hold that the demand made on the petitioners to remit revenue recovery charges cannot be justified. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the petitioners make remittance of the amount in pursuance to Exts. P9 and P10 excluding revenue recovery charges and if such remittance is made before 28/2/2008, that will be treated as in full satisfaction of the conditions of the OTS accepted by the respondents. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp