IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 84 of 2006(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ B.PONNAMMA, S.S.BHAVAN, PIRAVANTHOOR P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE SECHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. M.T.MOHANAN, MOHANAVILASAM, MANALIL PACHA, MANALIL P.O. EROOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1 R2&3 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.29.7.96 SENT BY PETITIONER TO R1. P2: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.19.8.96 ISSUED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.21.12.96 SENT TO R1 BY PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.30.12.97. P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1 DT.12.1.98. P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.15.1.98. P7: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.14.12.2005 ISSUED BY R2. P8: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.27.12.2005 SUBMITTED BY PETIITONER BEFORE R3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(a): TRUE COPY OF NOTICE TO PETITIONER BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, SC/ST CORPORATION DT.26.11.96. R1(b): TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER BY PETITIONER TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER DT.21.12.96. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.84 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.P. is filed by the petitioner challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears due to first respondent. Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that loan was given for purchase of an autorickshaw by the 4th respondent and petitioner was a surety. If defaulter has not settled the liability, then recovery can be made against petitioner. One opportunity is given to the petitioner to identify the properties of the defaulter to the second respondent without any delay and if properties of the defaulter are identified, the same will be attached and sold first. However, recovery can be continued against the petitioner who is admittedly the surety, if full recovery is not made from 4th respondent within four months from now. If petitioner does not furnish details of properties of the defaulter-4th respondent, recovery can be continued against her. The W.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms