IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 167 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- N.GOPI, S/O.NARAYANAN, LATHA BHAVAN, KALATHARA P.O., NEDUMANGAD 695 541, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., SILVER JUBILEE BUILDING,STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 4/02/2009 IN I.A.NO.293/09) R1 BY ADV. MR. K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.167/2009 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 25/10/2004 SANCTIONING DCRG TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/06/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/08/2005 OF THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER DTD. 12/08/2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 13/03/2009 SHOWING RECOVERY EFFECTED FROM THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R2(A):COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR, SURETIES AND SC/ST CORPORATION DTD. 21/02/1995. ANNEXURE R2(B): COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SC/ST CORPORATION DTD. 23/01/1995. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.167 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner retired from the service of the KSRTC on 31.5.2002. Ext.P1 shows that an amount of Rs.1,76,235/- was due to him as DCRG, which is a component that could not be attached in execution of the decree of a civil court or by revenue recovery proceedings. I may at once state that when DCRG amount is released and the grantee of the gratuity come into possession of those funds, such funds in the hands of the grantee would be available for attachment. 2. The petitioner was a surety with the third respondent KSFE by way of loan or chitty transactions of another person. The normal principle, over which there is no dispute, is that the principal debtor and the surety have co-extensive liability. 3.The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that KSRTC has paid the amount that was due to him as DCRG to the KSFE, among WPC.167/09 Page numbers other amounts, in satisfaction of its demands. With the passage of time, KSFE has closed that transaction. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner very rightly argued that DCRG is a component which cannot be attached. However, as of now, the question is when the amount of DCRG has been rightly or wrongly passed on to a person, viz. KSFE, in discharge of a legal liability of the petitioner, whose such liability as a co-obligant in a transaction is not in dispute, is it necessary for the writ court to step in and undo what has been done. The relief sought for is for a direction to refund the amount of DCRG. In my view, this does not call for any order of the writ court because in the ultimate scales of justice, which alone would prevail in the writ court, no injustice could be said to have been done by the KSRTC in having released to KSFE, the amount necessary to satisfy the liabilities that were outstanding from the petitioner and co-obligants. The KSFE is a public sector body and ends of justice does not prompt this Court to issue any direction reversing the process. This is WPC.167/09 Page numbers more particularly because in terms of law, the petitioner may be entitled to contribution and restitution even from persons who would have been liable to pay under the contract to the KSFE. In the result, leaving open all rights of the petitioner as against the co-obligants under the transaction with the KSFE, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.5/8.