IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 14916 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- MATHEWS ENTERPRISES, MUNDAKKAYAM REPRESENTED BY P.M.MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PALAMPRA P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, KOTTAYAM BRANCH. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, KFC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No. 14916/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 : A PHTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.4.08 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 : A PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 6.5.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.14916 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a defaulter in re-payment of loan amounts due from Kerala Financial Corporation. The Kerala Financial Corporation requested the revenue authorities to initiate revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the loan amount. Subsequently the petitioner availed of the facility of one time settlement from the 1st respondent and paid of the entire amount due. The grievance of the petitioner now is that the 1st respondent is insisting on payment of collection charges also. According to the petitioner, in view of the decision of this court on Bhaskaran v. Sub-Registrar 2005(3) KLT 150 the petitioner is not bound to pay collection charges since the payment was directly made to the 1st respondent without intervention of the revenue authorities. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement to the effect W.P(C)No.14916 of 2008 - 2 - that pursuant to the request from the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has issued notice for attaching the properties of the petitioner and has taken steps to sell the properties in auction and it was only then that the petitioner has paid the amount. According to the learned Government Pleader, the decision in Bhaskaran's case (supra) is not applicable to this case, in so far as further proceedings have been initiated after issuing notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. The Government Pleader would submit that Bhaskaran's case would be applicable only when the revenue recovery authorities have not taken any steps other than issuing revenue recovery notice. I am of opinion that since the 2nd respondent has taken further steps to issue notice, the revenue authorities would have incurred expenses for the same, which the petitioner is bound to complete. However, I do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the case the collection charges has to be 5 %. The petitioner now brings to my notice that W.P(C)No.14916 of 2008 - 3 - the Government itself had recently amended the Revenue Recovery Act by reducing the collection charges to 1%. Therefore, as a special case I am inclined to reduce the collection charges to 1% in this case. 2. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioner would be liable to pay only 1% collection charges in this case. I make it clear that it is not as a proposition of law but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The 1st respondent shall after payment of the collection charges return the security documents to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of payment. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs