IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11631 of 2008(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR.R. CLERK (PPC 5852). SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHINNAKKANAL BRANCH, MUNNAR RESIDING AT MANNATHU MADOM, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (RR) KSFE LTD, HP UNIT, KUMARANASAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, COURT ROAD ALAPPUZHA. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR. 3. THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHINNAKKANAL, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD. - R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHM, SC, SOUTH INDIAN BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.11631/2008 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ID CARD ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. NIL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THIRD RESPONDENT DTD. 22/02/08. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 11631 OF 2008 - I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P2 issued by the 1st respondent for recovery of the amount from the salary of the petitioner, who is an employee of the South Indian Bank. Petitioner contends that he is neither a defaulter nor a surety and that therefore the prohibitory order is illegal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on instruction, submits that it was not the petitioner, but his father who had availed of a loan from the respondents. The 1st respondent has no case that the petitioner has anything to do with the loan availed of by the father. In this factual background I cannot uphold the prohibitory order issued against the petitioner as he is in no way connected with the liability incurred by his father. If his father is liable it is for the 1st respondent to proceed against the defaulter W.P.(C) No.11631/2008 - 2 - and not against the petitioner. 3. Therefore Ext. P2 will stand quashed. Without prejudice to the right of the respondents to proceed against the defaulter or the sureties, as is permissible in law, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-