IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17435 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M.VINAYACHANDRAN NAIR, HEAD CLERK, ESI HOSPITAL, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU SRI.J.NARAYANA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. 2. LAY SECRETARY & TREASURER, ESI HOSPITAL, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JAYAN S., TC NO.19/1113, PUTHUSSERI VEEDU, THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHAN,SC,TVM.DIST.CO.OP. FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17435 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was one of the sureties to a loan availed of by the 3rd respondent from the 1st respondent Co-operative Bank. The loan was availed of during the year 1998-99. Default was committed and Ext.P1 notice was issued to the Administrative Officer of the Department, in which the petitioner is working. Petitioner contested the liability by Exts.P2 and P3. Finally, the Bank issued Ext.P4 requiring recovery of the amount due at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month. It is challenging the recovery, the writ petition is filed. 2. Evidently, petitioner has undertaken to discharge the liability and also agreed for recovery from his salary. If that be so, there is nothing illegal in the proceedings initiated by the Bank by Ext.P4. Petitioner submits that default was committed at the inception itself if the Bank had taken timely action, the liability would have been much less than what it is today and that therefore, he should not be penalised for the latches on the part of the Bank. WPC 17435/09 :2 : 3. In my view, if the petitioner has a case that the recovery is unjustified or that the amount that is sought to be realised is not due, this is a monetary dispute and it is for the petitioner to pursue the matter before the statutory authorities. In any case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has given undertaking, a copy of which has been produced by the Bank as Ext.R1(a) along with the counter affidavit, the recovery proposed from his salary cannot be faulted. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent, the principal debtor is willing to discharge the liability by paying monthly instalment of Rs.5,000/- each and accepting such payment, he should be exonerated from monthly recovery as proposed in Ext.P4. If as stated, the 3rd respondent is willing to discharge the liability in the manner as indicated above, I leave it open to the petitioner to raise the matter before the 1st respondent, in which event, the Bank shall consider the request of the petitioner for relieving from recovery from his salary. Writ petition is dismissed, but however without prejudice to WPC 17435/09 :3 : the contentions of the petitioner and clarifying that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his case before the statutory authorities. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp