IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24230 of 2009(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THANKAPPAN P.K AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE KANDANKUNJU, PEECHIL HOUSE KOTHADU P.O., KARIKKATTU THURUTH. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE, SRI.A.V.JOJO. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,GOVT.SERVANT'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.123. N.PARAVUR. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C REGIONAL WORK SHOP, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN, SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY. R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 24230/2009-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPIES OF THE RECOVERY MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER FROM AUGUST 2009 TO JANUARY 2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE BALANCE STATEMENT OF SHOWING THE ACTUAL AMOUNT DUE FROM THE PETITONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(c) : COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION DATED 03/02/2005. EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE SECURITY BOND. EXT.R1(e): COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH AGREEMENT FOR RECOVERY DATED 29/01/2005. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24230 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated 1st October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. While in service, he had availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the first respondent in the year 2003. Subsequently, he had applied for another loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. That was also sanctioned and after closing the first loan account the balance amount of Rs.80,000/- was given to the petitioner. In respect of the second loan as well, that is loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, the petitioner had committed default in repayment. Subsequently, the petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2009. The petitioner contends that while he was in service, at the instance of the first respondent continuous deduction from his salary from January, 2005 till March, 2008 has been effected for the purpose of remittance towards the second loan account. Further contention of the petitioner is that later the first respondent made a requisition to the second respondent to recover a total sum of Rs.1,67,078/- towards the said loan account. It is the contention of the petitioner that subsequent WP(C).No.24230/2009 2 to the issuance of the said requisition by the first respondent, he had approached the first respondent with a request to provide the details of recovery made towards the second loan account. However, they refused to give such details and it is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the first respondent. Along with the counter affidavit, they have filed a statement showing the actual amount due from the petitioner to the first respondent as Ext.R1(b). In the light of Ext.R1(b) the grievance of the petitioner with respect to the action on the part of the first respondent in not providing the details of recovery stands redressed. Therefore, the issue surviving for consideration is only with respect to prayer No.1. It pertains to the recovery notice dated 16.5.2009. Prayer No.1 reads thus:- “(i) Call for the records pertaining to the recovery notice dated 16/5/2009 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.” It is the settled position that in order to issue a writ of certiorari the particular document/order which is sought to be quashed has to be produced before this Court. In the absence of production of such a document before this Court there would not anything to quash by issuing WP(C).No.24230/2009 3 a writ of certiorari. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to relief No.1 in this proceedings. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy to redress the said grievance, in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is closed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS