IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27427 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.PAUL, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.M.PALAYYA, RESIDING AT MARY HOUSE, DYMOCK P.O., VANDIPPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 533. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), PEERUMEDU, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERIYAR VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, VANDIPERIYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 533. 4. K.R.DAS, PUTHOOR HOUSE, HELIBERIYA PUTHUVAL, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, ELAPPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. Z.MATHAI, HEADMASTER (RETIRED), MANCHUMALA, ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1 SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR ADDLR6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 27427 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner as well as the 5th respondent were guarantors with respect to loan availed by the 4th respondent from the first respondent Corporation. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against the coercive steps of recovery initiated at the behest of the first respondent for realizing amounts due under the loan account. Exts.P1 and P2 are notices issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, against the petitioner for realizing a sum of Rs.1,74,300/-. 2. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is the person who is liable for payment of the amount due. It is contended that the 4th respondent is still engaged in business activities and he is having sufficient income to repay the amounts. It is specifically contended that the 4th respondent is the ownership and possession of an extent of 0.82 ares of property comprised in survey No. 2 WP(C) No. 27427/2010 367 covered by Thandapper No. 4876 of Elappara Village. It is further stated that, on getting information about this, on the basis of Ext.P6 certificate obtained from the village office, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 to respondents 1 and 2 pointing out availability of immovable property in the name of the borrower and requesting to take effective steps against such property. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of Ext.P3 representation submitted during July, 2010, no action was taken against the 4th respondent and coercive steps are now being pursued against the petitioner. 3. In a statement filed by the first respondent, it is admitted that the respondents have received Ext.P3 representation. But it is stated that the revenue authorities could not locate the 4th respondent to initiate any action against him, since it is learned that the 4th respondent had shifted his residence to somewhere in Madras. It is further stated that eventhough steps were initiated against the 5th 3 WP(C) No. 27427/2010 respondent, who is another guarantor, for realizing amounts from his salary, it was reported that the 5th respondent had already retired from service. It is pertinent to note that the statement is silent about any specific action taken on the basis of Ext.P3 to proceed against the property allegedly in the ownership and possession of the defaulter, the 4th respondent. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is only just and proper for the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against immovable property of the borrower, which pointed out by the guarantor through Ext.P3. It is made clear that the petitioner being a guarantor is equally liable for payment of the arrears and the liability is co-existence with that of the borrower. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take effective steps to proceed against the property pointed out as available in ownership and possession of the 4th 4 WP(C) No. 27427/2010 respondent, at the earliest possible. It is made clear that the movable property belonging to the petitioner can be proceeded against only if the amounts is not receivable through such steps taken. 5. In order to facilitate the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the properties of the 4th respondent with such steps as directed above, sale of immovable property if any belonging to the petitioner and further steps of recovery against his person and movables shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. It is made clear that the immovable property belonging to the petitioner can be held under attachment and further action can be taken only subject to outcome of the proceedings initiated as directed above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc