IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15701 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. C.C.CHANDRAN, S/O. CHERUKANDAN, AGED 54 YEARS, BLACKSMITH, KSRTC, N.PARAVUR DEPOT, RESIDING AT CHIRATTAPURACKAL HOUSE, MALIPPURAM, KOCHI - 1. 2. C.K.MANI, S/O. C.K. KUTY, CHARGEMAN, R/W. ALUVA, RESIDING AT CHANEPARAMBIL, CHIRAKKAKAM, VARAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER, KSRTC, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, ALUVA. 3. THE ALWAYE DESABHIVARDHINI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.946, BYPASS ROAD, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. M.K.SASI, COACH BUILDER, KSRTC, R/W, ALUVA, RESIDING AT MOOLATH HOUSE, SOUTH VELLARAPPILLY P.O., NEAR THIRUVAIRANIKKULAM TEMPLE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1, R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, S.C. R3 VT ADV. SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS SRI.R.SURESHKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMARAJ SRI.K.M.VIKAS SRI.ANTONY JOSEPH MARIADAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.15701 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the 4th respondent has different other liabilities and attachments, and it is not feasible for the third respondent to effect recovery against his salary. It is also stated that the petitioners would be retiring shortly and there is no reason why the petitioners, as sureties, should not be proceeded against since their liability is co-extensive with that of the 4th respondent. Hence, I do not find any ground to let the petitioners wriggle out of their responsibilities as sureties and issue any order to confine the recovery to be only against the 4th respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that apart from the petitioners, the 4th respondent will also be proceeded against to the extent possible, in the wisdom of the third respondent. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.20/6.