IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34664 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- G.MURALEEDHARAN,S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, SREE KRISHNA VILASAM,KUZHIMATHIKADU, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., KOLLAM REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, 691 001. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR(RR) KSFE LTD., KOLLAM – 691 001. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KSFE, VADAYATTUKOTTA BRANCH,KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., 691 001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL,SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, PATTATHANAM,KOLLAM-691 021. 5. JAYAPRAKASH,S/O.JANARDHANAN,JANARDHANA, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM 691 002. 6. JAYANTHI, HEAD ACCOUNTANT, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM 691 572. R1,3 BY ADV. SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 34664 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner stood as a surety for the 5th respondent, who had joined a chitty transaction with the 1st respondent. The 6th respondent herein is another surety for the transaction in question. Consequent to failure on the part of the 5th respondent in remitting the amounts of subscription, steps were initiated at the behest of the 3rd respondent to recover the amounts from the salary of the petitioner. Prohibitory order in this regard was issued to the 4th respondent who is the disbursing officer of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the coercive steps of recovery from the salary was sought for without taking any effective steps to recover the amount from the 5th respondent, who is the principal debtor and also from the 6th respondent who is the co-surety. 2. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 it is mentioned that the 5th respondent is having no landed property in his name and that he is an unemployed person from whom the amounts could not be recovered in any effective WP(C).34664/2010 2 manner . It is further mentioned that the 6th respondent is surety in another chitty transaction and amounts are being recovered from his salary pursuant to steps initiated in that case. It is further stated that, initially the request was issued for recovering salary of the petitioner @ Rs.8000/- per month. But subsequently it was refixed and reduced to Rs.5000/- per month. It is mentioned that a total amount of Rs.2,14,675/- is outstanding arrears in the chitty account in question, as on 14.12.2010. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner had executed necessary documents of guarantee for payment of amounts due under the chitty transaction which includes terms enabling recovery of the amount from his salary, I find no merit in the contentions raised to the effect that amounts should be recovered from respondents 5 and 6. Liability of the petitioner is co-extensive with that of respondents 5 and 6, and the petitioner could not raise any legal contention against the steps of recovery initiated. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. However, it is made clear that, the recovery steps initiated under the provisions contained in the Keraa Revenue WP(C).34664/2010 3 Recovery Act should be confined to the limitations contained under Section 80 of that Act, with respect to the recovery of salary to be effected. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach respondents 2 and 3 to seek appropriate relief in this case, if deduction is effected beyond the permissible limits as contemplated under section 80 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).34664/2010 4