IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9987 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VISWAPPAN NAIR, ANITHA BHAVAN, T.C.6/1964, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ARBITRATOR/SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.131, TRIVANDRUM. 3. TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.131, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. T.CHANDRAMATHY AMMA, ANITHA BHAVAN, T.C.6/1964, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SC SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).9987/2011 ....................... Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a retired employee of the KSRTC who was a guarantor to the loan obtained by the fourth respondent from the third respondent Bank. The factum of non payment of the amount is admitted by the petitioner, which necessitated recovery from the salary of the petitioner during the period 1994-97 as evident from Ext.P1. Pursuant to the steps taken by the Bank by way of arbitration proceedings, Ext.P3 award was passed on 28.2.2004. Being aggrieved by the award, matter was taken up in appeal before the Tribunal which led to Ext.P5 verdict passed on 29.9.2008. Petitioner is now before this Court seeking to set aside Exts.P3 and P5 as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank as well. 3. Considering the admitted pleadings and materials on record, this Court finds that the alleged cause of action, if W.P.(C).9987/11 2 at all any is stale; besides the fact that there is no legally sustainable ground to interfere with the liability by virtue of being a guarantor. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that no interference is warranted. None of the grounds raised in support of this writ petition does serve its purpose. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs