IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 9657 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. A.P.PAREETH RAVOTHAR, AGED 68 YEARS, CHUNDATTU HOUSE, UDUMBANNOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SAINABA, W/O.PAREETH RAVOTHER, AGED 60 YEARS, CHUNDATTU HOUSE, UDUMBANNOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.JOSE MATHEW (PALACHUVADU) SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, PULIMOOTTIL SHOPPING ARCADE, MOOVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DY. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KFC, KOTTAYAM. (R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.4878/08 DTD.10.4.08) BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD SHRI.V.B.UNNIRAJA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.9657 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are man and wife. They had obtained a loan from the 2nd respondent, repayment of which was defaulted, pursuant to which recovery proceedings were initiated. The petitioners approached the 2nd respondent for benefits under the One Time Settlement scheme, which was granted, availed of and the entire loan account was settled by paying the entire amount due directly to the 2nd respondent. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that in spite of settlement of the loan account, the 2nd respondent is not returning the security documents on the ground that the petitioner is also liable to pay collection charges, since the 2nd respondent has to pay collection charges to the State. In the above circumstances, I directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions as to whether the State has taken any steps to actually recover the amount from the petitioners other than issuing a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. The Government Pleader today submits that apart from issuing a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, no other w.p.c.9657/08 2 steps were taken to actually recover the amount from the petitioners. Therefore, as per the judgment of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar reported in 2005 (3) KLT 150, the State is not entitled to recover collection charges in respect of the transaction between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. Of course the Government Pleader would submit that in view of the amendment of the Revenue Recovery Act making it obligatory on the part of the requisitioning authority to pay collection charges once requisition is made, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay collection charges. I am not satisfied that the State can recover collection charges from the 2nd respondent also in so far as the State has not incurred any expenses for recovery of the amount from the petitioners. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to release the security documents furnished by the petitioners for the loan granted to the petitioners, which has been completely repaid. I also make it clear that the State is not entitled to recover collection charges from the 2nd respondent. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.9657/08 3