IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8613 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- S.SUNDARAN PILLAI, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI, CONDUCTOR, K.S.R.T.C. CHADAYAMANGALAM DEPOT, RESIDING AT JITHIN HOUSE, KARICODE, CHANDANATHOPPE.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SRI.C.SINOY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE K.S.R.T.C, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, KOTTARAKKARA DEPOT, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. CHADAYAMANGALAM DEPOT, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, NEDUVATHOOR.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SRI.VASUDEVAN ACHARY, DRIVER, K.S.R.T.C,KOTTARAKKARA DEPOT,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SMT.RATHI KUMARI, W/O.VASUDEVAN ACHARY, VILLAGE ASSISTANT, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. THE EZHUKONE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.2935, EZHUKONE.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 8. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, EZHUKONE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.2935, EZHUKONE.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR. V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8613 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'KSRTC' for short). He has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P2 proceedings initiated by the 7th respondent for recovery of the defaulted loan amounts due from the 6th respondent. According to the petitioner, he is the only earning member of his family. He had stood as a guarantor for the loan transaction of the 6th respondent along with the 5th respondent. His complaint is that respondents 5 and 6 have colluded with the other respondents and have initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner alone, without proceeding against the principal debtor. It is the petitioner's case that the 6th respondent has immovable properties in Naduvathur village. Her husband, the 5th respondent is an employee of the KSRTC. Though he is also a surety for the transaction, no action is taken against him. According to the petitioner, the action for recovery initiated only against the petitioner to the exclusion of respondents 5 and 6 is arbitrary and wpc No.8613/2010 2 illegal. The petitioner also contends that he has already remitted an amount of Rs.48,000/- towards the loan amount. Therefore, he prays that he may not be taxed further. 2. It is the settled position of law that as surety, the petitioner cannot complain against the action for recovery initiated against him for the recovery of the loan for which he had stood as a guarantor. But since, the allegation is that the petitioner is being proceeded against, excluding respondents 5 and 6, the Standing Counsel was directed to get instructions. Adv.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar who appears for the KSRTC submits that it is only in cases where sufficient amounts were not available for recovery in the salary of the principal debtor that the salary of the sureties are attached. He undertakes that the salary of the petitioner would be attached only in a situation where sufficient amount is not available in the salary of the 5th and 6th respondents. It is also pointed out by the counsel that the Society can initiate action for recovering the amount due from the immovable properties of the defaulters also. Since it is assured by the counsel for the first respondent that recovery from the petitioner's salary would be effected only if sufficient amounts are not available in the salary of the 5th and 6th respondents, I do not think it necessary wpc No.8613/2010 3 to consider the other contentions raised in this writ petition. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of recording the above undertaking of the first respondent. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge css/