IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38541 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.V. SHIBU, PEON, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY, SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR, CHANGANACHERY, KOTTAYAM. PIN - 686 106. 2. THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR CHRISTIAN CONVERTS FROM SCHEDULED CASTES AND RECOMMENDED COMMUNITIES LTD., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686 106. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SC, KSDC FOR CC&RC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 38541 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging steps initiated for recovery of amounts due to the 2nd respondent by deduction from monthly salary of the petitioner. He is a surety with respect to loan availed by one Sherlymol from the 2nd respondent Corporation. On the basis of Ext.P3, the 1st respondent, who is the disbursing officer of the petitioner, was requested to deduct an amount of Rs.3000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. 2. The limited challenge against the proceedings on the basis that recovery at the rate of Rs.3000/- is not permissible in view of section 80 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act read with Section 60 of the CPC, as held by this court in the decision reported in Bharghavan vs. Special Deputy Tahsildar (2003 (3) KLT 753). 2. In this regard it is noticed that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 2nd respondent. I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and take a decision WP(C) .38541/2010 2 on the basis of Ext.P5 within a time to be stipulated. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 and to take a decision thereof after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time the 2nd respondent takes a decision as directed above, the respondents are restrained from effecting recovery from the salary of the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .38541/2010 3