IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 34257 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GEETHA. N.K., HOSPITAL ATTENDER GRADE II, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.ANOOP, SMT.R.KRISHNA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. LAY SECRETARY & TREASURER, DISTRICT HOSPITAL THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001. * 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ORIGINAL R.3. DELETED AND IS SUBSTITUTED BY NEW R.3: * SUBSTITUTED R.3. TAHSILDAR, PARUR TALUK, NORTH PARAVUR. *ORIGINAL R.3. IS DELETED AND SUBSTITUTED BY NEW R.3. AS PER ORDER DT. 01/06/11 IN I.A. 7630/11. 4. DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES-DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-18. 5. SANTHOSH.N.S., NOCHITHARA, MALIYANKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-683 516. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL, R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34257/2010-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/05/2007 ISSUED BY R.4. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 25/05/2010 ISSUED TO THE R.1. BY THE R.4. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 20/04/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34257 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June 2011. J U D G M E N T In this Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging coercive steps of recovery initiated at the behest of the 4th respondent, for realising amounts due in a loan account, which was availed by the 5th respondent from the 4th respondent corporation to which the petitioner stood as a guarantor. By virtue of Ext.P2, steps were initiated for the realisation of the amounts due from the monthly salary of the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner is that the coercive steps for recovery of amount from the salary of the petitioner is taken without taking any effective steps for realisation of the amounts from the 5th respondent, who is the principal borrower. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that 5th respondent W.P.9C0 No. 34257/2010 2 has got immovable property, which can be proceeded against for realisation of the arrears. 2. When the Writ Petition came up for consideration on 3.12.2010, opportunity was granted to the petitioner to point out the details regarding immovable property if any belonging to the 5th respondent. The respondents were directed to take appropriate steps against such property, if pointed out. On the basis of the directions issued as above, petitioner had produced Ext.P3 encumbrance certificate which will indicate that 5th respondent had created encumbrance on a property having an extent of 2.02 ares comprised in survey No. 75/23 of Moothakunnam village. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had produced certified copy of the document which is a sale deed registered as document 5657/87 of Sub Registrar Office of North Paravur. From the said document it is evident that the property mentioned in the encumbrance certificate was purchased by 5th W.P.9C0 No. 34257/2010 3 respondent during the year 1986. Under such circumstance, petitioner is contending that it is highly unreasonable and unjustifiable on the part of the respondents in not taking steps for attachment of the property belonging to the 5th respondent. On the said premise, petitioner seeking interference to restrain recovery steps initiated for realising the amounts from the salary of the petitioner. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, it is mentioned that revenue recovery steps were initiated both against the petitioner as well as against the 5th r respondent. It is pointed out by learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent that on the basis of requisition received from the 4th respondent, demand notices were issued to the 5th respondent under section 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. On receipt of such demand, the 5th respondent had approached the Government and obtained installment facility for W.P.9C0 No. 34257/2010 4 remitting the amounts in 40 equal monthly installments. Accordingly, the 5th respondent started remitting installments. But after remittance of 7 installments, amounting to Rs. 10,245/-, he defaulted payments. But in the meanwhile, the government had issued various orders declaring moratorium with respect to recovery of loans availed by persons belonging to fishermen community for purposes connected with the fishing activities. Since the defaulter is conducting peeling shed and the loan was availed for the said purposes, coercive steps of recovery could not be pursued in view of the government orders. It is also stated that since the petitioner herein is working with the first respondent, steps were taken for recovery of the amount from the salary of the petitioner. 4. While considering the facts and circumstance narrated above, I take note of the fact that the petitioner admits that she stood as guarantor for W.P.9C0 No. 34257/2010 5 securing loan availed by 5th respondent, The liability of the petitioner for repaying the amount of loan is co- extensive with that of the borrower. Therefore, petitioner could not raise any valid contentions refuting the liability. Neither she is entitled to refute the liability by making an allegation that there was dereliction on the part of respondents in taking effective steps of recovery against the principal borrower. 5. However, it is only just and reasonable that all effective steps of recovery is being taken against the borrower also, it is evident from the statement of the learned Government Pleader that all possible steps initiated could not be pursued because of the reasons mentioned as above. However, it is pertinent to note that the 5th respondent has not approached the fishermen Debt Relief Commission seeking any benefit under the said Act. Under such circumstance, the 3rd respondent should explore all possibility of taking effective and coercive steps against 5th respondent W.P.9C0 No. 34257/2010 6 for realising amounts, especially in view of the facts pointed out by the petitioner to the effect that the 5th respondent has got immovable property in Moothakunnam village. 6. Interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the respondents in this regard to take effective steps without any further delay. However, on the basis of the facts and circumstance stated above I am not inclined to direct that the recovery steps against the petitioner should be withheld. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed, subject to the observations made as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE al