IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2045 of 2006(R) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.R.KOMALA KUMARI, W/O.P.R.BALACHANDRAN, `SOORYA', CHERTHALA POST, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, U.D.CLERK, P.W.D. DEPARTMENT A.L.P. BY ADVS. SRI.SUDHEESH.A. SMT.C.V.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, GOVT. SERVANT'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.235, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. S.RAVIKUMAR, RASMI NIVAS, PATHIRAPPALLY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 3. C.PURUSHAN, TYPIST, SPECIAL BUILDING SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SUB DIVISION, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, GOVT. SERVANTS CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., NO.235, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. R1, R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.2045/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2045 Of 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a U.D.Clerk under the Roads Sub Division of the Public Works Department. She is aggrieved by the illegal recovery from her salary towards the loan account of the 2nd respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent has availed a loan from the 1st respondent-Society and the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are the sureties. It is stated that without proceeding against the loanee as well as the other surety, recovery is sought against the petitioner alone. 3. The 4th respondent will look into the complaint of the petitioner, if not already done. The recovery, if any, can be made only in terms of the agreement executed between the sureties and the parties concerned. The petitioner cannot be treated differently since the loanee as well as the 3rd respondent-surety are available. If the loan account has not been closed so far, the 4th respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action under law. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of . Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge