IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 6243 of 2008(R) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- B.SATHYAPRIYA, AGED 54, W/O.LATE T.K.VELAYUDHAN, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUVILASSERY POST, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KFC, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 6243 OF 2008 - R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a guarantor to a loan availed of from the 1st respondent Corporation. Following the default that was committed, recovery proceedings were initiated and at that stage, an application was made for availing of the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. It is submitted that the request made by the petitioner was accepted and accordingly payment was also made as per the scheme. Despite discharge of liabilities, petitioner contends that the documents deposited by the petitioner have not been released for the reason that the collection charges provided under the Revenue Recovery Act have not been paid. In this background the writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the Corporation also concedes that it was only on account of the non-payment of collection charges that No Objection Certificate is not issued by the Revenue Recovery Authorities and hence the documents were not released. It is stated that it is a condition precedent for the release of the documents. W.P.(C) No. 6243 OF 2008 - 2 - 3. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that when liability is settled under the One Time Settlement Scheme, irrespective of whether the default is already advised for recovery or not, the defaulter cannot be made liable for collection charges. In fact, in the judgment in W.A. No. 2502 of 2007 a Division Bench has pointedly dealt with this issue and even held that the Corporation also cannot be made liable for collection charges. Therefore, I must accept the contention that the petitioner is not liable for payment of collection charges. If that be so, now that the petitioner has discharged his liabilities, the 1st respondent is bound to release the documents that are deposited by the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall release the documents which are deposited by the petitioner as security for the loan availed of. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one week of production of a copy of this judgment. Necessarily the 4th respondent also shall lift the attachment ordered against the properties. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jan/-