IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29386 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R. VIJAYAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. P. PRAKASH, RESIDING AT TWINKLE BHAVAN, MUKOOD.P.O, MULAVANA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE.J.PUNNACHALIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STTE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR CHRISTIAN CONVERTS FROM SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE RECOMMENDED COMMUNITIES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, TC 25/2871, SREEVILAS, AMBUJA VILASAM, MATHRUBOOMI ROAD, VANCHIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LILYKUTTY.M, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. JOLLY, RESIDING AT MOONGALKKOTTU HOUSE, THEVALAPURAM.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY,SC,KSDC FOR CC&RC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).29386/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Second respondent availed a loan for an amount of Rs.31,500/- from the first respondent in they year 1995. Petitioner who is working as Sales Tax Inspector in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Audit & Assessment), Commercial Tax Department, stood as guarantor for the loan amount. It seems that the principal debtor defaulted payment of the instalment and steps have now been taken against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:- (i). Call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same to the extent which it has ordered the recovery of the salary of the petitioner by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to initiate W.P.(C).29386/2008 2 recovery proceedings against the second respondent and recover the amount due, from the second respondent. 2. Ext.P3 referred to above is a letter issued by the first respondent to the petitioner intimating that the second respondent failed to repay the loan, and that recovery will be made from the salary of the petitioner. 3. A statement has been filed by the counsel for the first respondent pointing out that arrears due from the second respondent as on April, 2007, is Rs.45,630/- and the liability of the petitioner and the second respondent is joint and several. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. There is no appearance on behalf of the second respondent in spite of notice. 5. Though the liability of the petitioner as guarantor and the second respondent principal debtor are joint and several, it may not be inappropriate for the first respondent to first proceed against the second W.P.(C).29386/2008 3 respondent. I take note of the fact there is no appearance for the second respondent. 6. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to first proceed against the second respondent for recovery of the amount due from her and if it is found by the first respondent that it is unable to recover the amount either wholly or in part from the second respondent, then it is entitled to take steps against the petitioner. First respondent shall prosecute such steps as are available to it in law against the second respondent for a period of at least six months and if it is found that the first respondent is unable to recover its dues from the second respondent, then letter containing the reasons, which disables the first respondent in this regard shall be sent to the petitioner and there upon, first respondent would be entitled to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the balance amount. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs