IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21134 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, CHALAMKODU KARA, MUTHALAKKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, BRANCH AT VANDIPERIYAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, VANDIPERIYAR, PEERUMEDU TALUK. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, KATTAPPANA. BY SR.G.P.SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.21134 OF 2008-N ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a surety for a loan transaction availed from the first respondent. He is retired from service. His contention is that his NLC is not being issued on account of the view being taken by the second respondent that he is liable to pay the amounts to the second respondent. 2. The short issue is whether there is any agreement by the petitioner in favour of the first respondent, in terms of Section 37 of the KCS Act, to the extent of authorising recovery from the DCRG also, over and above the salary. 3. I have perused the files of the first respondent which has been placed by its learned counsel. It contains a written agreement for recovery, in the printed form. That provides for recovery from salary and any other fund due. That agreement has been signed by the petitioner. The head of office where he was then working has also signed the WPC.NO.21134/08 . 2 undertaking to act in consistence with Section 37 of Act 21 of 1969. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled to NLC without clearing the amounts due to the first respondent is unsustainable. 4. This also means that any payment that the petitioner would make or any deduction that would be made from his DCRG would be under distress, enabling the petitioner to proceed against the principal debtor in the transaction, for restitution or compensation, as the case may be. Subject to the above, this writ petition is ordered directing that the second respondent will finalise the NLC of the petitioner at the earliest after effecting such recovery as could be done from the DCRG in terms of the demand of the first respondent and paying it to the first respondent. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.21134/08 . 3