IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16294 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUNNY JOHN, S/O.P.A.JOHN, PALATHOTTATHIL, POODUMKALLU, P.O.RAJAPURAM, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.A.F.SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, N.M.G.B TOWER, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR-4. 2. DOMINIC JAMES, S/O.N.J.CHACKO, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, 'SWAROOPAM', NR. AYYAPPA GARAGE, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, S.C, ADV.MR. K.M.ANEESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No.16294 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 3rd July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a guarantor to the second respondent in connection with the loan transaction with the first respondent Bank under the P.M.R.Y Scheme, has approached this court challenging the steps stated as being pursued by the Bank for realisation of the due amount . The case of the petitioner is that he stood as a guarantor only in respect of one of the two loans and that the said liability, if at all not cleared by the principal borrower can only be to the extent equivalent to the actual amount minus subsidy, that is being provided by the Central Government. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank, on instruction, submits that the Bank has already filed a statement before this Court today. It is brought to the notice of this Court that present proceedings are being pursued only W.P.(C) No.16294 OF 2009 2 against the assets of the second respondent and not in respect of the petitioner herein. It is also conceded from the part of the first respondent that there will not be any attempt to realise the amount provided by the Central Government as subsidy, unless and until the said benefit is withdrawn or otherwise directed to be dealt with by the Central Government. This being the position, the learned Counsel for the first respondent Bank submits that the apprehension of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived and the Writ Petition is quite premature. In the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is closed, recording the submission made from the part of the first respondent-Bank holding that the petitioner can be proceeded against only in respect of the actual amount liable to be paid by the principal borrower in respect of the first loan on his default. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk