Kerala High Court
Shahul Hameed N.M vs The Chief Manager on 4 June, 2008
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12582 of 2008(W)
1. SHAHUL HAMEED N.M., AGED 30 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF MANAGER
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY THAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
For Petitioner :SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER
For Respondent :SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, KFC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/06/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 12582 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner availed of a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC). He defaulted repayment of the same. The KFC requested the Revenue authorities to initiate recovery proceedings. A notice was issued to the petitioner under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Thereafter, the petitioner requested for benefit under One Time Settlement Scheme which was granted and the petitioner paid off the entire amount due availing of the benefit under the OTS scheme directly to the KFC. In spite of the same, the security documents deposited by the petitioner with the 1st respondent are not being released to the petitioner is the grievance raised in the writ petition. The stand of the KFC is that they are bound to pay to the State collection charges, which the petitioner has not paid. The petitioner would submit that in so far as the petitioner had paid the amount directly to the KFC and the State has not taken any steps for recovery of the amount from the petitioner other than issuing notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, in view of the decision of w.p.c.12582/08 2 this Court in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar reported in 2005 (3) KLT 150, the petitioner is not liable to pay any collection charges.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KFC and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned Government Pleader, while admitting that apart from issuing notice under Revenue Recovery Act, no further steps were taken by the Revenue authorities in the matter, would contend that in view of the amendment to the Recovery Recovery Act making it obligatory on the part of the requisitioning authority to pay collection charges once requisition is made, the petitioner is bound to pay collection charges also. The learned Standing Counsel for the KFC would submit that if this Court holds that collection charges are not payable by the petitioner, the KFC may be absolved from the liability to pay collection charges.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of opinion that the ratio of the decision Bhaskaran's case (supra) applies squarely to the facts of this case. Apart from issuing a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, no further w.p.c.12582/08 3 steps whatsoever have been taken by the Revenue authorities for recovery of the amount due from the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has paid the amount directly to the KFC by availing of the OTS benefit. The fact that the Act was amended making it obligatory on the part of the requisitioning authority to pay collection charges once the requisition is made, does not alter the legal position as held in Bhaskaran's case (supra). If that be so, the State cannot recover it from the KFC also. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
If the petitioner has paid off the entire amount due to the KFC other than the collection charges, the security documents deposited by the petitioner with the KFC shall be released to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Revenue authorities shall not proceed against the KFC for recovery of the collection charges in so far as the petitioner is not liable to pay collection charges.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
w.p.c.12582/08 4