IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37338 of 2010(N) -------------------------- OS.447/2010 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.K.BABU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, MUTTATHARA HOUSE, MANJUMMEL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL SRI.M.K.ABDULLA (MANADATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KALAMASSERY MAIN BRANCH, PIN-683 104. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ALUVA NORTH, PIN-683 001. ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R1 SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37338 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an employee of the KSEB. He availed of a loan of ` 33,000 from the 1st respondent for the purchase of a two wheeler furnishing security of two salary employees. Default was committed and the Bank has filed OS No.447/2010 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam for recovery of the amount. While so, an amount of ` 10,000 has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. At that stage, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the recovery is illegal and the Bank should be restrained from recovering from the salary until the Civil suit is disposed of. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is a defaulter and under the terms of the loan agreement, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure I along with the statement filed on behalf of the Bank, the Bank is entitled to recover its dues from any source if that is available to it including from salary. If that be so, in law, Bank cannot be faulted for the steps it has taken. Petitioner contends that before the Civil Court, he has filed a written WPC No. 37338/10 :2 : statement disputing the liability as quantified by the Bank, and therefore, the Bank should not proceed with any recovery at this stage. In my view, if the petitioner has such a case, it is for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court objecting to the recovery made and seek appropriate reliefs and as at present, I see no reason to interfere in a writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp