IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26774 of 2008 Between: B. Ratnamba W/o. Late Sri Prabhakararao Jaggayyapet Branch of United India Insurance Co., Residing at Jaggayyapet ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-I United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raja Rangaiah Appa Rao Street, Vijayawada-1 2.The Chief Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Regional Office, Pavan Enclave, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam 3.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., KVS Temple Road, Jaggaiahpet (PO) Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an Order direction or a writ one in the nature of 'Mandamus' declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in deducting my salary in violation of Section 60(i) and Order 21 Rule 48 of the CPC and consequently direct the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 1,16,492/- along with interest at 18% per annum which was collected from April, 2006 from my salary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SRINIVASA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.26774 of 2008 Order: The petitioner is the wife of one late Sri. Prabhakara Rao, who worked with the respondents – United India Insurance Company Limited. It appears that during his lifetime, he obtained loans from various persons, to which the petitioner stood as guarantor, and as her husband defaulted in payment of the same, they filed suits for recovery, in which decrees were passed, and consequently orders of attachment were passed against the petitioner, who is a guarantor. Now it is the case of the petitioner that the action of respondent No. 3 in deducting more amounts from her salary than what has been attached under the court orders, is illegal and arbitrary, and violative of the provisions of Section 60(1) and Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and prays for appropriate directions to the respondents, particularly respondent No.3, not to deduct more amounts, and refund the excess amounts, recovered from her salary to the tune of Rs.1,16,492/- to her. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the own admission of the petitioner, she is a guarantor to the loans taken by her husband, and she along with her husband suffered multiple decrees, and for realization of the said decretal dues, the competent civil Courts, passed orders attaching the salary of the petitioner, and directed respondent No.3 to recover the same from the salary of the petitioner and remit the same into the Court. Since respondent No.3, is playing the role of a garnishee and is deducting the amounts, as directed by the competent civil Courts, he cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or illegally and in violation of the various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to the own admission of the petitioner, she has suffered more than one decree, and if according to her, respondent No.3 in the guise of attachment orders, is deducting more amounts than what the Courts have directed or is implementing all the attachment orders passed in various proceedings simultaneously, then the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Courts that have passed orders of attachment of salary, for realization of the decretal dues, and seek appropriate orders, but certainly respondent No.3, who is acting as a garnishee and deducting the amounts as directed by the Courts, cannot be found fault with nor any direction can be given to him by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not to deduct the amounts that were directed to be deducted by the competent civil Court for realization of the decretal dues. The writ petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 11.12.2008 VGB