IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34424 of 2008(W) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PADMALAYAM SURESH, S/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, GPEESWARI, KUREEPUZHA, PERINADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, R.R., KOLLAM. R1 BY SHRI N. MANOJ KUMAR, SC. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 34424 OF 2008 W -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner's wife availed a loan. Apparently, there is a recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner's wife. Complaint of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner is not a guarantor to the loan, the attempt is to attach the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, first respondent besides the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the first respondent admits that the petitioner is not a guarantor and the recovery is directed against the wife of the petitioner. 3. There cannot be any legal grievance if the properties of the petitioner's wife are proceeded against. At any rate, petitioner cannot have a complaint against the same. Should the movable properties of the petitioner be attached erroneously, WPC.34424/08 W 2 as held in M.S. Khadija v. Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue), Kottayam (1974 KLT S.N. 3 OP No.3073/72), it is for the petitioner to raise a claim before the Officer attaching such movables and it is for the said Officer to consider the claim and take a decision thereon before any further action is taken in the matter. In the same way, if the immovable properties of the petitioner are attached, again the petitioner has a remedy under Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act by filing a claim petition within fourteen days of the attachment thereof. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that if the movable properties of the petitioner are attached, it will be open to the petitioner to raise a claim and the Officer carrying out the attachment shall be bound to consider the claim and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, before taking any further steps. Also, in the event of any immovable property of the petitioner being attached for recovering the amount due WPC.34424/08 W 3 from his wife, it is again open to the petitioner to resort to Section 46 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge