IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23008 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- PRASANNA KUMARI, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, 'ASHTAPATHI', AVALOOKKUNNU P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,KERALA. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE HEAD MISTRESS, T.D.H.S. ALAPPUZHA. 4. SHERTALLAI AIDED SECONDARY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SCOCIETY LTD A. 276 CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI FOR R3 SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C FOR R4 SRI.JOHN VARGHESE (VEYKKAN) FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.23008 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner was a co-obligant for a facility availed principally by one M.Vilasini Bhai. Petitioner has retired from service. The short issue arising for decision is as to whether there is an agreement under Section 37 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, under which there could be deduction from the retiral benefits. Ext.R4(c) placed on record contains the specific clause as Clause (4) authorising recovery from the monthly salary. Though Clause (5) is pointed out by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, it is not a provision in accordance with Section 37. All that it provides is that, if there is failure to recover from the salary or if it is found by the Board of Directors that the loan has been mis- WPC23008/08 -:2:- utilized, the society has the authority to immediately recall the entire loan facility and proceed for recovery. I am unable to read the necessary elements of Section 37 in Clause (5) of Ext.R4(c). Therefore, the recovery against the petitioner cannot be had by invoking Section 37 of the Act as against her retiral benefits. This writ petition is allowed granting such declaration, however leaving the fourth respondent with all liberty to proceed with such legal steps that may be taken for recovery of the outstandings, in accordance with law. The third respondent will consider expediting the issuance of LC or NLC of the petitioner. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.