IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28780 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAMNAD RASOOL, S/O. SHAIK RASOOL, GULSHAN, MARUTHUMKUZHY, KANJIRAMPARA P.O., VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HARIKUMAR, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, UDIYARAMOOLA, KATTAYIKONAM P.O., AYIROORPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 584. 2. ANILKUMAR, S/O. PARAMESHWARAN PILLAI, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, UDIYARAMOOLA, KATTAYIKONAM P.O., AYIROORPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 584. 3. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, KAZHAKUTTOM BRANCH, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 082. 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), THE KSFE LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, VIKHAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN SRI.M.L.SAJEEV - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.28780 of 2010-V ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against coercive steps of recovery initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to realise amounts due to respondents 3 and 4, in a chitty transaction which was subscribed by the 1st respondent to which the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent stood as sureties. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, huge amounts were being recovered from his salary on the basis of Ext.P2 order, virtually reducing the salary of the petitioner to a negligible amount. It was contended that, the respondents 3 and 4 are not taking any effective steps to recover the amounts from the 1st respondent who is the principal defaulter, inspite of the petitioner pointing out that he is in ownership and possession of immovable property. 3. By virtue of an interim order issued by this Court, recovery of amounts from the salary of the petitioner was stayed, subject to conditions imposed. It is noticed that the petitioner W.P(C) No.28780 of 2010-V 2 had effected a total payment of Rs.45,000/- in compliance with such conditions. Through an interim order issued on 2.12.2010, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to furnish details of immovable property, if any owned by the 1st respondent, and the respondents 3 and 4 were directed to take effective steps for attachment and sale of such properties. But it is now submitted that the 1st respondent had already sold the immovable properties which were belonging to him and that at present the whereabouts of the 1st respondent are not known. It is however submitted that certain amounts were recovered from the 2nd respondent, the co-surety. 4. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 it is mentioned that as on 30.9.2010 an amount of Rs.1,00,696/- is outstanding payment. After crediting payments made by the petitioner as well as amount recovered from the 2nd respondent, the outstanding amount due will be less than that. 5. It is pertinent to note that the liability of the petitioner is co-extensive with that of respondents 1 and 2. On the basis of the surety agreement executed, the petitioner could not successfully contend that the recovery steps initiated to realise the amount from his salary, is in any way illegal or W.P(C) No.28780 of 2010-V 3 unsustainable. However, learned counsel for the petitioner raises a contention that the rate of amount at which the deductions are made is excessive and it is not permissible in view of the restrictions imposed through Section 80 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act read with Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Under the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, while dismissing the writ petition, the respondents 3 and 4 are also directed to take effective steps for recovery of the amounts from respondents 1 and 2. It is made clear that, the respondents 4 and 5 shall ensure that no amount in excess of the restrictions imposed under Section 80 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is recoverable from the salary of the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab