IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 29554 of 2007(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JALAJA, AGED 50, W/O.SARASAN, PUTZHANGARA HOUSE, ALUVA, NOW RESIDING AT C.O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SEMINARIPADY, ALUVA. BY ADV. MR.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR (RR) ALUVA TALUK. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29554/2007-R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/09/2007 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 29554 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Petitioner's husband stood as a surety for an accused in C.C.No. 1211/2001 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva. He died on 15-6-2007. The accused did not appear before the court on the date of posting. Therefore, his bail bond was cancelled. The Magistrate initiated M.C.No. 13/2007 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the husband of the petitioner and revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. The revenue authorities threatened to attach the movables of the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext. P1 representation . (ii) issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from attaching the movables in the rented house of petitioner. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to remit the RR dues in 15 equal monthly instalments.” 2. In Ext. P1 representation filed by the petitioner before the Tahsildar, Aluva, it is stated that she has no assets and she is residing in a rented house along with her spastic child and another son. She also submits that she has no other income and that she is pulling on with great difficulty. 3. The learned Government Pleader opposes the prayers. According to her, on the accused absenting himself, it is the duty of the surety to ensure his presence in court and therefore there is nothing wrong in realising the fine. W.P.C. No. 29554/07 -: 2 :- 4. There is nothing on record to show as to when the penalty was imposed. If it is after the death of the husband of the petitioner, then the same would be unsustainable. The surety's liability is personal and after his death, he will not be able to ensure presence of the accused and penalty cannot be imposed on him. Even otherwise, only if he wife has inherited the properties of the husband, she would be liable to pay the penalty. For all these reasons, I am of opinion that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is unsustainable. Accordingly, I direct that all further proceedings for recovery of the penalty amount shall be dropped. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/