IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28510 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MOHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O.MOHAMMED, URUNIYAN HOUSE,P.O.PUZHAKKATTIRI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PATHUMMA K.C., W/O.MOHAMMED ASHRAF,URUNIYAN HOUSE, P.O.PUZHAKKATTIRI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHEESHKUMAR SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REGD.OFFICE TC 15/25,PANKAJ,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANNTHAPURAM 2. KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, DISTRICT OFFICE:MALAPPURAM (PO) MUNDUPARAMBA-676509 REPRESENTED BYITS DISTRICT MANAGER 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM-676505 4. THE HEAD MASTER G M U P SCHOOL,KIZHISSERY,676505 5. SIDDEAK A, AMANATH, THAYYAIL MULLIAKURISHI,PATTIKKADU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679325 ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC,K.S.B.C.DEVP.CO FOR R1&2 SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28510 OF 2010(K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Admittedly, for a loan that was availed of by the 5th respondent for education purpose, petitioners 1 and 2 were the sureties. Not only that the 5th respondent did not complete the education, he also committed default in repaying the dues. According to the Standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, several notices were issued to the Principal Debtor and also to the sureties and there was no response from either of them. It is stated that respondents 3 and 4, the disbursing officers of the petitioners also did not effect recovery. It is in these circumstance recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. 3. Although these submissions are disputed by the petitioners, fact remains that petitioners are sureties to the loan in question. If that be so, the creditor is always at liberty to recover from any of the defaulters. It is in that process if they have initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioners, that WPC.No. 28510/2010 :2 : cannot be faulted, much less in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Further, according to the standing counsel, as on 11.8.2010, Rs.1,55,000/- plus interest was due. If that be so, recovery now ordered at the rate of Rs.3000/- also cannot be said to be exorbitant. 5. However, counsel for the petitioners undertakes that, they will discharge the entire liability within 6 months. Now that, the petitioners have given an undertaking before this court, I feel it is only appropriate that the petitioners should be permitted to discharge the liability. Therefore, I direct that recovery proceedings now initiated against the petitioners be deferred for a period of 6 months, provided the amount due to the respondents 1 and 2 shall be paid by the petitioners in 6 equal monthly instalments, fist of which shall be paid on or before 15.10.2010 and subsequent installments shall be paid on or before 15th of every succeeding month. It is made clear that in case any default is committed by the petitioners, it will be open to the respondents to continue the recovery proceedings. Writ petition is disposed of as above. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WPC.No. 28510/2010 :3 :