IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36267 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.M.SASIDHARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 53 YEARS, AYYAKKUNNEL, RAMAKKALMEDU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE IDUKKI DISTICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD MUNDIYERUMA BRANCH, KALLAR P.O., IDUKKI REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. BAIJU MATHEW, MALIYEKKAMALAYIL, RAMAKKALMEDU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. P.A.THOMAS, PADANILATH, MOOLAVATTOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. C.M.JOSEPH, AJI BHAVANAM, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 36267 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a surety for repayment of loan amounts granted to the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent . Towards repayment amounts have been recovered from the petitioner and another guarantor. According to the petitioner, the amounts so recovered from the petitioner and the other guarantor have not been properly accounted for by the 1st respondent-bank. The petitioner submits that more amounts than what are actually due have been recovered from the petitioner. In spite of the same, the Bank is again demanding further huge amounts from the petitioner, is his climplaint. The petitioner has therefore filed Ext. P1 representation in that regard to the 1st respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P1. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent also. I am of opinion that in view of the contention raised, the 1st respondent should consider and pass a reasoned order on Ext. P1. In this connection, I note the contention of the 1st respondent that the information requested for in Ext. P1 has been supplied by Ext. P3. All the same, I consider it necessary that the 1st respondent should afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass a final order regarding the amounts due from the 2nd respondent in respect of the loan transaction. This shall be done within a period of one month from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.