IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19341 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------------- VIJAYAKUMAR.J, S/O.JANARDHANAN, L.R.POSTAL ASSISTANT,OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT VIJITHA VIHAR, KURUTHAMCODE PO., KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPRAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, K.S.F.E.(R.R) STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE POST MASTER, THYCAUD HEAD POST OFFICE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. J.BINDU KUMARI, W/O.M.GOPI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, PERINGAMMALA, KALLIYOOR P.0. 5. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPALARAMAN, CONDUCTOR, K.S.R.T.C., KUNDARATHALIKKAL VEEDU, PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O. ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEV, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. FOR R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19341/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was one of the sureties to a hire purchase availed of by the 4th respondent from the first respondent. The 4th respondent committed default and revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and Rs.2000/- per month was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. Admittedly, even going by the statement filed by the respondents, after deducting the collection charges, they have already realised Rs.43,783/- during the period from 21.2.2006 to 18.6.2008. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that continuance of the recovery is impermissible in view of Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act read with Section 60 of the CPC. Though on facts there is no dispute about WP(c).No.19341/2008 2 the extent of the recovery effected, learned counsel for the first respondent contends that, in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this court reported in Sukumaran V. KSRTC (2002(3)KLT 169 once an agreement has been entered into agreeing for recovery from salary, the defaulter or the surety cannot thereafter claim protection of Section 60 of CPC. 3. I am not in a position to accept the plea that the aforesaid judgment applies to the facts of this case. That was a case where the protection of Section 60 was claimed by the defaulters, unlike this case where the petitioner is claiming the benefit of Section 80 of the Revenue Recvery Act, which in turn makes Section 60 applicable. This position is also covered by the judgment of this court reported in Bhargavan Pillai v. Special Deputy Tahsildar(2003(3) KLT 753), where it has been held that for realisation under the Revenue Recovery Act, by virtue of Section 80 there of Section 60 is applicable. WP(c).No.19341/2008 3 4. Therefore, admittedly recovery has already been effected beyond the period permitted in the aforesaid statutory provisions and therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to effect any further realisation from the salary of the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.19341/2008 4