IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 10196 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.SHABEER,PUTHUVALVARUVILAKATH VEEDU THOOKUVILA, PAPPANAMCODE,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, SILVER JUBILEE BUILDINGS STATUE, TRIVANDRUM-1. 2. BRANCH MANAGER KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD MALAYINKEEZHU, TRIVANDRUM- 21. 3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM-18 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE, LTD FOR R1 ADV. SRI.V.V.N.NAMBIAR -SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.10196 of 2011-Y ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P2, through which the 1st respondent had initiated steps through the 3rd respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.42,558/- along with interest, from the salary of the petitioner. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to arrears due to the 2nd respondent in a loan account, which was availed in connection with a chitty transaction which the petitioner's mother had with the 2nd respondent. The deceased father of the petitioner Sri.Malik Mohammed, who was working in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) stood as a surety for the above said transactions. Contention of the petitioner is that, he was neither a borrower nor a guarantor with respect to the transaction in question and that he is has no personal liability to pay arrears if any due to the 2nd respondent with the respect to the transaction in which his mother is the W.P(C) No.10196 of 2011-Y 2 defaulter. The petitioner points out that, at the behest of the 2nd respondent, steps had already been taken by the 3rd respondent to attach DCRG due to the deceased father. It is also submitted that the steps were pursued to recover the amounts from yet another surety who had also retired from KSRTC, namely Sri.Sasidharan Asari. At any rate, steps initiated for recovery of the amounts from the salary of the petitioner is sustainable, is the contention. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, there is no much dispute with respect to the factual aspects as narrated above. It is mentioned that, eventhough steps to recover the amounts from DCRG of the deceased father of the petitioner as well as from other surety were initiated, no amounts has been recovered so far. It is further stated that, steps has already been initiated against the loanee (mother of the petitioner) by way of attaching the family pension, which she is getting from the KSRTC. 3. According to respondents 1 and 2 steps for recovery from the salary of the petitioner was initiated, W.P(C) No.10196 of 2011-Y 3 because he got the job in KSRTC under the dying-in-harness Scheme. It is contended that being the legal heir of the loanee as well as the guarantor and also being a person who got job under the dying-in-harness Scheme, the salary of the petitioner is liable to be attached. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent also made contentions in support of the version put forth by respondents 1 and 2. 5. Considering merits of the rival contentions, I am of the view that, the amount due can be recovered through attachment of the DCRG and other amounts due to the deceased father of the petitioner as well as to the other surety, Sri.Sasidharan Asari. It is also valid to have steps taken against the mother of the petitioner, who is the loanee, to recover the amount from the family pension, if permissible under law. However, merely because the petitioner got a job under the dying-in-harness Scheme, he could not be held personally liable for the dues, which is defaulted by his mother or the deceased father. True that W.P(C) No.10196 of 2011-Y 4 the estate if any inherited from the deceased father may be liable to be proceeded against. But as long as the petitioner is not a borrower or a guarantor, his personal earnings are not liable to be proceeded against for realising the arrears in question. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of quashing steps initiated under Exts.P1 and P2 for recovery of amounts from the salary of the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that, the respondent will be free to proceed with recovery steps against the persons who are liable as described above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab