IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13110 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.RAMAN, ATHIKUNI HOUSE KANIYAMBETTA P.O. KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS THE U.D.CLERK, AT THE OFFICE OF THE A.E.O.VYTHIRI, AT KALPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.K.SINDHU, W/O.T.S. BALAN, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LIC OF INDIA, THAMARASSERY AMSOM, DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, K.S.F.E. THAMARASSERY. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.S.F.E. KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VYTHIRI, KALPETTA. ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, ADDL.SC.,KSFE LTD. FOR R2 SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN,SC,K.S.F.E. LTD FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.13110 of 2006-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the guarantor with respect to a loan availed by the 1st respondent from the 2nd respondent. Consequent to default committed by the 1st respondent in repayment of the amounts due, steps were initiated for recovery of the amounts from the salary of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent, who is the drawing officer of the petitioner, requesting to recover the amounts at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month, from the salary of the petitioner. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the coercive steps of recovery from salary of the petitioner was initiated without taking any effective steps to recover the amounts from the principal debtor as well as from other surety. 3. It is admitted that, the petitioner is a guarantor and he had executed an agreement to that effect, which contains a clause facilitating the respondents 2 and 3 to W.P(C) No.13110 of 2006-I 2 realise the amounts from the salary of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. Therefore, the petitioner could not raise any successful challenge refuting the liability. 4. In the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that, steps were already taken against the borrower as well as other surety, and certain amounts were already recovered from them. Therefore, it is evident that the contention raised by the petitioner has no factual basis. 5. Under such circumstances, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach respondents 2 and 3 for settlement of payment by seeking instalment facility or through one time settlement. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner as observed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab