IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16559 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.GOPALA, S/O.KORAGAN, ACCOUNTANT,MOGRAL PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.KUDULU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. MR. T.SETHUMADHAVAN MR. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH MR. K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, REP.BY ITS MANAGER,MARIANA MALL YMCA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001,KERALA 2. DAMAODARAN M,PEON,ULLERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.ULLERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 3. G.GEETHA,W/O.M.DAMODARAN, R/A.VAZHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NEAR LALANDA HOSPITAL P.O.ULLERI,VIA.KOYILANDY,KOZHIKODE-673323 4. THE MOGRAL PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MOGRAL PUTHUR, KASARAGOD-671128 5. THE ULLERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.ULLERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673323 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) 16559 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 18.11.2008 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.06.2011 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 16559 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st June , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : “i). to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext. P2. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order, or direction, directing the 1st respondent to proceed first against the 2nd respondent for the overdue amount instead of the petitioner. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to request the 5th respondent to deduct the amounts due to the 1st respondent from the salary of the 2nd respondent. iv) declare that the first respondent cannot proceed against the petitioner without proceeding against the respondent 2 and 3; and v) to grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the fats and circumstances of the case. 2. Going through the materials on record, with reference to the specific pleadings, obviously no writ of mandamus will lie against the first respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So also, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner stood as a 'guarantor' to the loan W.P. (C) No. 16559 of 2011 : 2 : availed by the second and third respondents. The contention of the petitioner appears to be that, before proceeding against the petitioner, the respondent have to proceed against the said persons, particularly the second respondent, who is also employed in the 4th respondent Panchayath. 3. Obviously since no writ petition is maintainable against the first respondent and that the deduction from salary of the petitioner made by the Panchayath, is only on the basis of the agreement admittedly executed by the petitioner, this Court finds it difficult to extend the relief sought for. In the said circumstances, no interference is called for. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly, however, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedies in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd