IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 431 of 2009(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, SAJ MODERN RICE MILL, PERINCHIRA HOUSE, MUTHALAMADA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CENTURY COMPLEX, MATHAKOVIL STREET, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD-678 001. ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC FOR R2 GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).431/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a loan of Rs.12,20,000/- from the Kerala Financial Corporation. When there was default in the repayment of the same, revenue recovery steps were taken at the instance of the Corporation. Petitioner moved for a settlement of dues under the One Time Settlement Scheme and amounts as demanded by the Corporation have been remitted though there was delay in the same. The dispute now relates to the demands for recovery charges, at the instance of the revenue officials. 2. The recovery charges are demanded in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and Rules, 1968 which reads as follows:- “Institutions except Government departments accepting defaulted payments directly from the defaulter after initiating RR proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (Act 15 of 1968) and filing the certificate by the District Collector under W.P.(C).431/09 2 Sub section (3) of Section 69 of the said Act shall be liable to pay 1% of the amount so collected towards service charge for the initiation of Revenue Recovery proceedings against the defaulter and to initiate the fact of such acceptance to the District Collector concerned at once.”' 3. Petitioner is willing to remit the collection charges at the rate of 1% of the amount collected, in terms of Rule 5(3). Learned Government Pleader submits that the actual recovery was effected prior to the amendment of Rule 5(3), that is prior to 6.5.2009. I am of the view that since by the amendment, there is a benevolent change brought about, remittance of collection charges at the rate now prescribed under Rule 5(3) shall be treated as sufficient. It is accordingly declared. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs