IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29004 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MARY KUTTY K.K., W/O.P.K.BABU, KARIYAM PUTHEN VEEDU, EAST KALLADA P.O., CHITTUMALA, KOLLAM-691 502. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER, DISTRICT OFFICE, OPP. S.N.WOMEN'S COLLEGE, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, MAR IVANIOS COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695015. 3. MATHEW VARGHESE,S/O.GHE VARGHESE, THEVALAKKARAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MYLAMKULAM P.O., PUTHOOR, KOLLAM.PIN- 691 507. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC,K.S.B.C.DEVP.CO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29004 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner is working as Selection Grade Lecturer under the 2nd respondent. She stood as guarantor on behalf of the 3rd respondent for a self- employment loan availed from the 1st respondent Corporation. Consequent to default committed by the 3rd respondent in repaying the amounts, steps for recovery from the salary of the petitioner was initiated. Ext.P1 is the request issued by the 1st respondent Corporation to the 2nd respondent to recover a total sum of Rs.65,500/- from the salary of the petitioner, at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month. 2. Complaint of the petitioner is that the recovery steps against the petitioner was initiated without taking any effective steps to recover the amounts from the 3rd respondent, who is the borrower. It is stated that the petitioner had specifically pointed W.P.(C).29004/10-A -2- out that the 3rd respondent is having immovable property situated in Puthoor Village, having an extent of 2.50 Ares along with a residential building, comprised in Re- Sy.No.48/19 and a Thandaper Account No.6616. Inspite of such information furnished the 1st respondent is not taking any effective steps to recover the amount from the 3rd respondent, is the contention. Under the above circumstances the petitioner is seeking to restrain steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 and also seeking directions to the 1st respondent to initiate effective steps for recovery of the amounts from the 3rd respondent. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is mentioned that the 3rd respondent had availed the loan on 19.6.2006, to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, the strength of surety of the petitioner. The petitioner had undertaken through an agreement to recover the amount from her salary, in case of default if any committed by the borrower. It is further stated that she was duly intimated about the default through various notices. With respect to the W.P.(C).29004/10-A -3- allegation about the immovable assets available with the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the 1st respondent had already initiated steps and the Village Officer as well as the Sub Registrar were addressed for getting details of the property and about its encumbrances. It is mentioned that no reply was so far received with respect to such enquiries made. 4. It is evident that the petitioner had executed an agreement of surety for the purpose of availing the loan in question. The liability of the petitioner as a surety is co- extensive with that of the 3rd respondent. It is settled law by this time that, as far as the creditor is concerned it is within their absolute choice to proceed against either the borrower or against the guarantor. Therefore I find no valid reasons to restrain the recovery steps against the petitioner. However, on an equitable ground, it is only just and proper on the part of the respondents to take effective steps against the 3rd respondent also, especially in view of the fact that the petitioner had pointed out about availability of immovable assets belonging to him. W.P.(C).29004/10-A -4- 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with directions to the 1st respondent to expedite recovery steps also against the 3rd respondent, on the basis of the information furnished regarding availability of immovable property. Effective steps in this regard shall be taken without any further delay, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb