IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37989 of 2007(V) PETITIONER: 1. BALAN K.R., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, 'SRUTHI BHAVAN', KRISHNAGIRI P.O. - MEENANGADI, WYNAD DISTRICT. 2. YESODHA T.G., W/O.K.R.BALAN, SRUTHI BHAVAN, KRISHNAGIRI P.O., - MEENANGADI, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENTS: 1. K.K.JOSE, KAKKANATT HOUSE, MOODAKOLLY P.O. KALLORKUNNU, VARKEY SULTHAN BATHERI. 2. JESSIMOLE, W/O.K.K.JOSE, KAKKANATT HOUSE, MOODAKOLLY P.O., KALLORKUNNU, VARKEY, SULTHAN BATHERI. 3. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REGISTERED OFFICE "BHADRATHA" P.O.BOX 510, CHEMBUKKADU, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, MANANTHAVADI BRANCH. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, SULTHAN BATHERY BRANCH. 6. THE PRINCIPAL, G.H.S.MEENANGADI, WYNAD DISTRICT. 7. MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE MEENANGADI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN SC KSFE SRI.M.L.SAJEEV,SC KSFE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.37989 OF 2007 ========================= Dated this the 2nd day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Respondents 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, availed a loan from Mananthavadi and Sulthan Bathery Branches of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises. The petitioners who are husband and wife stood as guarantors for the same. Apparently properties belonging to the principal debtors were mortgaged as well, according to the petitioners, to secure the repayment of the loan. But repayment was defaulted by the principal debtors. The petitioners are working as High School Assistant and a Lady Health Inspector respectively. Their salary is being attached at the instance of the KSFE for recovery of the amounts due from the principal debtors. The attachment has been continuing for some time now. Petitioners contend that there is lethargy on the part of the third respondent to proceed against the principal debtors though properties are available with them. Advocate Notice (Ext.P6) has been sent pointing out these aspects and also referring to the landed properties which are apparently available to satisfy the debt incurred by respondents 1 and 2, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for respondents 3 W.P.(C)37989/2007 2 to 5 and the learned government pleader also. 3. No doubt, the liability of a surety will be coterminus with that of a principal debtor, in normal circumstances. It does not mean that the creditor should not take steps to recover the amounts due from the assets of the principal debtor. May be, the recovery by way of attachment from the salary of the government servants would be an easy mode of recovery, but as an instrumentality of the State, the third respondent should endeavour to recover the amount from the principal debtors. 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: The petitioners shall file a representation before the third respondent reiterating the aspects stated in Ext.P6, within a period of one month from today. Thereupon the third respondent or any person authorised by him in that regard having administrative control over the branches at Mananthavadi and Sulthan Batheri shall issue notice to the petitioners as well as respondents 1 and 2 to appear before him on a specified date. Then the third respondent or the authorised officer shall conduct an enquiry as to the existence of sufficient assets with the principal debtors. The third respondent shall draw up the proceedings indicating the schedule and a mode of recovery. If there are no assets W.P.(C)37989/2007 3 available with the principal debtors for recovery, the said aspect shall be specifically mentioned to the proceedings to be drawn up by the third respondent. But if there are assets available, then as far as possible, recovery must be first taken against the principal debtor. This shall also be indicated to the proceedings drawn up by the third respondent as aforementioned. But it is made clear that this will not exonerate the petitioners from the liability incurred by them as sureties for respondents 1 and 2. The direction is issued only on equitable considerations, to enable the creditor to effect recovery from the principal debtors and their assets, if available and if possible. Any proceedings shall be drawn up by the third respondent only after notice to the principal debtors, namely respondents 1 and 2. Needful shall be done by the third respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioners. Attachment of the salary of the petitioners shall be deferred till proceedings are drawn up by the third respondent in the manner aforementioned. Thereafter it will be subject to the orders to be passed by the third respondent. V.GIRI, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)37989/2007 4