IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35651 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M/S.CENTRAL GRANITES, VELACODE, MUNDOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.V.MOHAMMED SARISH. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, SMART CENTRE, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION BRANCH OFFICE, SMART CENTRE, THRISSUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THANGALOOR, MUNDOOR P.O., THRISSUR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANJOOR, MUNDOOR, THRISSUR. 5. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, MUNDOOR, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 35651 OF 2008 (T) ==================== Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had availed of two loans from the 1st respondent mortgaging immovable properties. Properties which were mortgaged are those mentioned in Exts.P6 and P7 certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Trichur and Village Officer, Anjoor. 2. The liabilities that were due to the 1st respondent were allowed to be settled extending the benefit of one time settlement scheme, and as at present, the liability stands fully discharged. It is also stated that the documents of title and other documents which were deposited at the time of availing of loan from the 1st respondent also have been released to the petitioner. However, the attachment which was effected for recovery by the 2nd respondent at the instance of the 1st respondent has not been lifted so far, for the reason that the petitioner has not paid the collection charges that are due to the 2nd respondent in respect of the amount that is released by OTS. 3. The petitioner submits that although recovery proceedings were initiated, since liability was discharged otherwise than through revenue recovery proceedings at the instance of the 2nd respondent, WPC 35651/08 :2 : collection charges are not payable. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the claim for collection charges on Rs.5,23,975 is illegal. He is also supported by certain judgments rendered by this court in this behalf. However, it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that a learned Single Judge of this Court has doubted the correctness of the judgments and the matter now stands referred to Division Bench in WP(C) No.23991/05. 4. Now that the Division Bench of this court is seized of the issue, it will not be proper for this Court to direct lifting of the attachment unconditionally. In the event ultimately the Division Bench decides the matter in favour of the revenue, sufficient safeguard should be provided in order to take care of the interest of the 2nd respondent also. 5. Taking into account all these, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. It is directed that the petitioner shall approach the 2nd respondent along with a copy of this judgment, in which event, the 2nd respondent shall quantify the collection charges that is payable by the petitioner and intimate the same to the petitioner. Once such intimation is given, the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee to the 2nd respondent and keep WPC 35651/08 :3 : the same alive till the controversy is settled by the Division Bench of this Court. Once the Bank guarantee is furnished as above, the 2nd respondent shall take necessary action for lifting the attachment effected in respect of the property covered by Exts.P6 and P7 forthwith. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp