IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21680 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.M.RAMLA BEEVI, W/O.SUBAIR E.S., ELLICKAL, THECKKADY P.O., NOW WORKING AS L.D.CLERK, PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE, THEKKADY, IDUKKI. BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR, SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN, SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PROJECT TIGER, PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE, THEKKADY, IDUKKI-685 536. 2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, IDUKKI BRANCH, CHERUTHONY, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI-685 602. 3. B.DILEEP, NOW WORKING AS U.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF THE FIELD DIRECTOR, PROJECT TIGER, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. P.K.PRASAD, NOW WORKING AS WATCHMAN, PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE, THEKKADY, IDUKKI-685 536. R2 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.21680 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining about the action initiated by the first respondent to recover an amount of Rs.2500/- each from the salaries of the third and fourth respondents who are guarantors to a loan availed by the petitioner from the second respondent. According to the petitioner, she gets a salary of Rs.6,252/- for a month. Already there is a recovery of Rs.2000/- from the salary of the petitioner towards repayment of another loan to which she was a surety. The petitioner is ready to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month towards the present loan in respect of which the impugned action is initiated. The petitioner is anxious to ensure that third and fourth respondents who are sureties to the loan transaction in which she is the principal debtor, are not put to inconvenience. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to recover an amount of Rs.3000/- from the salary of the petitioner and to desist from recovering any amounts from the salary of third and fourth respondents. Wpc 21680/2010 2 2. Adv.Nagaraj Narayan, who appears for the second respondent submits that the petitioner is a defaulter in respect of two loan transactions. In the first loan transaction, the petitioner was a surety where an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- is due. Since the principal debtor has not been making any payment, recoveries are being effected every month from the salary of the petitioner. An amount of Rs.3,11,800/- is due towards the second loan in which the petitioner is the principal debtor and respondents 3 and 4, the sureties. According to the counsel, no recovery has been made from the salary of the petitioner since 21.11.2009, even in respect of the first loan to which she is the surety. It is therefore submitted that, an amount of more than Rs.6,00,000/- is due, which cannot be recovered from the salary of the petitioner alone. It is also submitted that one of the sureties is due to retire in 2011 and therefore unless recoveries are made from the salary of the surety who is about to retire, the prospect of recovering the loan amount would become bleak after his retirement. 3. In view of the limited relief that I propose to grant, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the other respondents. I notice that Wpc 21680/2010 3 the petitioner had approached this court earlier by filing WP(C)No.383 of 2008. The judgment in the said case is Ext.P3. In Ext.P3, the petitioner has been given the liberty to take appropriate action in terms of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, if she had any dispute with respect to the action initiated against him. The counsel has a contention that the loan itself had become time barred and that initiation of coercive steps to recover a time barred debt was not permissible in law. Though the liberty of the petitioner to initiate proceedings under Section 69 of the Act had been reserved in Ext.P3 judgment, admittedly no action has been initiated by her in this regard, till date. I also notice that the action of the Bank that was under challenge in the said writ petition has been affirmed by Ext.P3 holding that recovery of amounts at the rate of Rs.2000/- from the petitioner, who was a guarantor in respect of the said loan transaction was justified. By the same reasoning, the contention of the petitioner that action may not be initiated against respondents 3 and 4 who are the sureties in the present case also has to fail. It is trite that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and that the Wpc 21680/2010 4 creditor has the liberty to initiate action for recovery of the amount due from either the principal debtor or the surety or sureties as the case may be. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned action of the respondents. 4. However, the petitioner's request to confine the recovery from his salary alone at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month without taxing the third and fourth respondents who are the sureties, is a matter that is to be considered by the second respondent, Bank. The petitioner may approach the second respondent by submitting a request for confining the recovery steps to her salary alone. If such a representation is made, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such an application. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk