IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29421 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUBAIDA BEEVI, W/O. LATE P.K.MAJEED, M/S. RIYAD SEA FOODS, POOCHANAPARAMBIL, KUTHIATHODE P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT. SALLY THOMAS CHACKO MR. P.T.THOMAS PERAKATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KUMARANASAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, COURT ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-1. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), K.F.C., ALAPPUZHA. BY MR. ABUL HASSAN, STANDING COUNSEL, K.F.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 29421 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Predecessor of the petitioner had availed a loan from the 1st respondent Corporation which has now been settled payment, as per the 'One Time Settlement' arrived at with the Corporation. Before settlement of the account revenue recovery steps were initiated. Dispute at present is with regard to demand raised by the 3rd respondent for payment of collection charges. According to the petitioner she is not liable for payment of any collection charges since the amount was directly paid to the 1st respondent Corporation. It is pointed out that issue relating to liability for payment of collection charges stands already covered in a Division Bench ruling of this court reported in Malabar Organics Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala in 2009 (4) KLT 328. In Para 6 of the said judgment it is specifically held that as far W.P.(C)No. 29421 of 2007 -2- as K.F.C. and K.S.F.E. are concerned, what is permissible is only recovery of the expenses provided under Items (i) to (vii) in the table under Rule 4, because those institutions are provided with their own machinery for recovery by utilising service of officers of the Government on deputation and the entire expenses including salary and maintenance of the establishment are met by those institutions. Therefore the petitioner is liable only for payment of expenses provided under Items (i) to (vii) of table under Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 2. Going by the dictum laid in the above said ruling, such amounts of expenses can also be claimed only if any effective steps have been taken pursuant to the revenue recovery proceedings, apart mere issuance of notice under Section 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act. At any rate the demand for collection charges now raised is not maintainable. W.P.(C)No. 29421 of 2007 -3- 3. Therefore the impugned demand is hereby quashed. The security by way of Indemnity Bond furnished by the petitioner at the time of release of the title deed will stand hereby cancelled. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/