IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11660 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PAUL P.GEORGE, TELEPHONE MECHANIC, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, VALAKKAI, P.O.KOYYAM, KANNUR-670 142. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SECRETARY, POSTAL-TELECOM-BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.1940, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. POSTAL TELECOM-BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.1940, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)/ARBITRATOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 4. SALES OFFICER, POSTAL-TELECOM-BSNL EMPLOYEES-CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.1940, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 5. GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, KANNUR, PIN-670 001. 6. P.C. GIREESH KUMAR, CP 184 A, "KARTHIKA" HOUSE, KANNUR TALUK, CHIRAKKAL VILLAGE, PUZHATHI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 001. 7. M. KUMARAN, MADAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, PATTUVAM VILLAGE, KAYYATHADAM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 001. R1, R2 & R4 BY ADV. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC. R5 BY ADV. MR.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.11660 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to consider Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner and pass orders thereon after affording him an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner has also prayed that the recovery proceedings initiated against him pursuant to Ext.P1 award passed by the arbitrator under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 may be kept in abeyance till Ext.P4 is heard and disposed of. 2. The petitioner and the 7th respondent herein were sureties to the loan availed by the 6th respondent from the 2nd respondent society way back in the year 2003. When they defaulted repayment of the loan, the 2nd respondent society instituted ARC No.313 of 2009 before the arbitrator who by Ext.P1 award passed on 07.4.2009, permitted the 2nd respondent to recover the sum of Rs.80,400/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.2.2009 till realization, from the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7. Thereupon W.P.(C) No. 11660 of 2011 -2- steps were taken by the 2nd respondent society to recover the sum of Rs.5,000/- from the salary of the petitioner, one among the sureties to the loan transaction and one of the judgment debtors under the award. The sum of Rs.5,000/- was thus recovered from the salary of the petitioner for the month of February, 2011. It was thereupon that the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 23.3.2011, requesting the Secretary of the 2nd respondent society and the Sale Officer, to proceed against the principal debtor and not to recover any amount from his salary. 3. The petitioner is admittedly a surety to the loan availed by the 6th respondent. By Ext.P1 award, the arbitrator has held him, the principal debtor (6th respondent) and another surety (7th respondent) jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of Rs.80,400/- with future interest. Therefore, apart from the fact that under section 126 of the Contract Act, the petitioner who is a surety is jointly and severally liable along with the principal debtor to repay the amount, the petitioner is also jointly and severally liable under Ext.P1 award to repay the loan. Ext.P1 award has attained finality. It is open to the creditor to proceed against either the principal W.P.(C) No. 11660 of 2011 -3- debtor or the sureties for realizing the amount covered by the award. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted in this writ petition. The remedy of the petitioner is to discharge the liability under Ext.P1 award and to sue the principal debtor for contribution. I, therefore find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK