IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22222 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.JAMALUDEEN LABBA, DARULHUDA, JAWAHAR COLONY, EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY P.O., PACHA-PALODE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES MAIN BRANCH, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), REGIONAL OFFICE, K.S.F.E. LIMITED, HOUSING BOARD JUNCTION, STATUTE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, STATE PLANNING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MUHAMMED SHAFEEQ, S/O.ASANARU PILLA, MALAYADI THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, ATTINPURAM, PANAYAMUTTOM P.O., PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD. BY SRI.M.L.SAJEEV, SC, KSFE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22222/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 26.10.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: A TRUECOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.11.2006. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.3.2008 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DIRECTING TODISBURSE THE DCRG TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITION ORDER DATED 25.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 7.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,PANAVOOR, NEDUMANGAD ABOUT THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 22222 OF 2008 U ==================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed praying mainly that though the petitioner is a surety to a chitty subscribed by the 5th respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding only against the petitioner and effecting recovery from his dues, without taking similar steps as against the 5th respondent, the principal debtor. 2. When the matter came up for orders before this court on 31/7/2008, it was adjourned with a direction to the standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 to obtain instructions in this matter. Today, the standing counsel on instructions submit that proceedings have already been initiated against the principal debtor also and that so far an amount of Rs.84,243/- had been recovered from him. It is also stated that still balance to be recovered is Rs.2,76,350 approximately, for which steps are being initiated against the principal debtor as also the sureties. 3. From the submission made by the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, it is evident that they have initiated steps WPC 22222/08 :2 : against the principal debtor also. If that be so, the grievance of the petitioner is unfounded. Even otherwise, petitioner cannot claim any legal right to be excluded from recovery, he being the surety, jointly and severally liable to make good the amount that is due. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp