IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8486 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DOMINIC MATHEW, VADAKKEMULANJINAL NARIANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA BRANCH 2. THE DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (RR), K.F.C. KOTTAYAM. 3. THE K.F.C., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ERNAKULAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI V.B.UNNIRAJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 8486 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 13, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner had availed of a loan from the 1st respondent. Following the default that was committed, when proceedings were initiated for recovery of the dues, petitioner applied for availing of the benefit of one time settlement scheme which was accepted by the Corporation. Thereupon, based on the OTS, the petitioner paid the amount due to the Corporation, but the documents deposited are not released and the reason thereof is that the 2nd respondent will issue NOC only if the petitioner remits the revenue recovery charges also. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed. 2. The fact that the petitioner has settled the liability availing of the benefit of one time settlement scheme is not in dispute. If that be so, this cannot be said to be a case where the amount has been recovered employing the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, which alone justifies the demand and realisation of WP(C) 8486/08 Page numbers recovery charges. Such being the case, the 2nd respondent is not justified in insisting on the remittance of recovery charges for issuing a NOC. The position being as above, I am satisfied that respondents 1 and 3 have no reason to wait for the NOC of the 2nd respondent, for releasing the documents. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall release the documents of the property mortgaged by the petitioner without waiting for a NOC to be issued by the 2nd respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-