IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 36555 of 2005(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- HARIDAS, AGED 49, S/O.GOPALAN ACHARI, V.P.2/882, MANIKANTESWARAN, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, CHIRAKKULAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MEDICAL COLLEGE BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SURENDRAN NAIR M.C., PRASOORAM, MANIKANTESWARAM, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, ADDL.SC.,KSFE LTD. FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 36555/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED TO RECOVER SALARY DATED 7.6.2005. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED TO RECOVER SALARY DATED 8.6.2005. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 20437 OF 2005(G) 5/8/05 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT AND DEMAND DATED 5.11.05 EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 8.12.05. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36555 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Even though stay was granted only for six weeks and respondents could have recovered arrears on expiry of stay in March, 2006 itself, it is not known whether respondents have proceeded for recovery. If recovery is not made then it only shows that the respondents have not acted in the interest of the Organisation to recover the arrears due to it. In any case, since petitioner is surety, recovery can be continued against the petitioner, if arrears are not recovered from the defaulter till now. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed but with the above observation. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg