IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17739 of 2011(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MANUELSONS HOTELS PVT.LIMITED, G.H.ROAD, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR P.M.GEORGE. BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CALICUT BRANCH, CALICUT-673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CALICUT-673 001. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI. R.S. KALKURA, S.C, R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17739/2011-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: CERTIFICATE NO. 070410710-11/234/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 02/04/2011. EXT.P.2: LETTER NO. DR 12/05-06/KKD ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 28/06/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 17739 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The dispute pertains to the liability for payment of collection charges under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. According to the petitioner, the amounts were settled payment directly to the 1st respondent and no amount was recovered through recourse of revenue recovery proceedings. It is settled through a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Malabar Organics Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2009(4) KLT 328) that collection charges is not levyable in case of arrears due to the 1st respondent Corporation if payment is made directly. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the above cited decision is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.2428/2010 and there is a stay of operation of the said judgment . 3. It is noticed that, the legal position settled as on today does not permit recovery of collection charges unless it is ultimately reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore WP(C) .17739/2011 2 Ext.P2 demand could not be enforced at present. However, the petitioner is still continuing with repayment of the loan due to the 1st respondent. Hence Ext.P2 demand is hereby quashed subject to final outcome of the legal issue regarding liability for payment of collection charges, from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is made clear that if ultimately it is held that the collection charges is levyable, in such circumstances the petitioner will be liable for payment of the same and the respondents will be free to take recovery steps. 4. Needless to say that the recovery steps shall not be pursued if the petitioner is regularly making payment in the loan account to the 1st respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .17739/2011 3