T.T.Mammed Koya vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35448 of 2009(A)


1. T.T.MAMMED KOYA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :09/12/2009

 O R D E R
                     C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

                     ------------------------------
                   W.P.(C).No.35448 OF 2009
                     ------------------------------

           Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009


                         J U D G M E N T

———————-

1. The issue pertains to liability for payment of collection

charges with respect to the revenue recovery proceedings

initiated for realisation of amounts due in the loan account,

availed from the 3rd respondent Corporation. It is admitted case

of the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent that, the entire

amounts have already been cleared payment on 23.4.2009. The

liability regarding payment of collection charges with respect to

the revenue recovery proceedings, now stands settled through a

Division Bench decision of this court in Usha Mary v. Kerala

Financial Corporation and Others (2009 (4) KHC 254 (DB).

It is observed in the said decision that with respect to KFC and

KSFE, those institutions have their own machinery of recovery,

by utilising the service of officers on deputation from the

Government and that the entire expenses including salary and

maintenance of such establishments are met respectively by the

Corporation and the Enterprises. Therefore it is held that there

is no justification in realising collection charges from those

Corporation or Enterprises, in terms of Rule 5(3) of KRR Rules.

W.P.(C).35448/09-A 2

2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the

Government is proposing to file appeal from the above said

decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, as the

legal position stands settled now, the petitioner cannot be held

liable for payment of collection charges or service charges.

3. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the

demand for payment of collection charges/service charges is

hereby quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to release

mortgage if any and to return the title deeds in deposit treating

the loan account as closed. Needless to say that if any expenses

is permissible to be recovered in view of the above decision, the

petitioner shall make payment of the same.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb