IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30775 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUSAMMA, W/O.MALAIRAJ, LD CLERK, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), DEVIKULAM, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR CHRISTIAN CONVERTS FROMSCHEDULED CASTE AND THE RECOMMENDED COMMUNITITES LTD., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR CHRISTIAN CONVERTS FROMSCHEDULED CASTE AND THE RECOMMENDED COMMUNITIES LTD. NEAR RAILWAY STATION, NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), DEVIKULAM, MUNNAR. 3. S.PARAMANATHAN, PERIYA CANAL ESTATE, LOWER DIVISION, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DT. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.30775 OF 2009 (N) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as LD Clerk under the Ist respondent. She stood as a guarantor for the 3rd respondent, who availed of a loan for the purpose of setting up a hair cutting centre under the Self Employment Scheme. Default was committed and recovery is being continued from the salary of the petitioner which the petitioner objects on that ground that the loan was availed of in 1995, recovery at this distance of time is time barred. According to the petitioner though she has objected to the recovery by filing Ext.P1 before the first respondent even that representation is not considered. 2. As at present I do not think it is necessary for this court to deal with the merits of the contention of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has objected to the recovery by filing Ext.P1 and that representation has not been considered by the Ist respondent. WPC..No.30775 /09 :2 : 3. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P1, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Ist respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/