IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27427 of 2010(C)
1. P.PAUL, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. K.R.DAS, PUTHOOR HOUSE,
5. Z.MATHAI, HEADMASTER (RETIRED),
For Petitioner :SRI.JOICE GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :14/10/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 27427 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner as well as the 5th respondent were
guarantors with respect to loan availed by the 4th
respondent from the first respondent Corporation.
Challenge in this Writ Petition is against the coercive
steps of recovery initiated at the behest of the first
respondent for realizing amounts due under the loan
account. Exts.P1 and P2 are notices issued under the
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, against the petitioner for
realizing a sum of Rs.1,74,300/-.
2. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent
is the person who is liable for payment of the amount due.
It is contended that the 4th respondent is still engaged in
business activities and he is having sufficient income to
repay the amounts. It is specifically contended that the
4th respondent is the ownership and possession of an
extent of 0.82 ares of property comprised in survey No.
2
WP(C) No. 27427/2010
367 covered by Thandapper No. 4876 of Elappara Village.
It is further stated that, on getting information about this,
on the basis of Ext.P6 certificate obtained from the village
office, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 to respondents 1 and
2 pointing out availability of immovable property in the
name of the borrower and requesting to take effective steps
against such property. Grievance of the petitioner is that
inspite of Ext.P3 representation submitted during July,
2010, no action was taken against the 4th respondent and
coercive steps are now being pursued against the
petitioner.
3. In a statement filed by the first respondent, it is
admitted that the respondents have received Ext.P3
representation. But it is stated that the revenue authorities
could not locate the 4th respondent to initiate any action
against him, since it is learned that the 4th respondent had
shifted his residence to somewhere in Madras. It is further
stated that eventhough steps were initiated against the 5th
3
WP(C) No. 27427/2010
respondent, who is another guarantor, for realizing amounts
from his salary, it was reported that the 5th respondent had
already retired from service. It is pertinent to note that the
statement is silent about any specific action taken on the
basis of Ext.P3 to proceed against the property allegedly in
the ownership and possession of the defaulter, the 4th
respondent.
4. Under the above circumstances, I am of the
opinion that it is only just and proper for the respondents 1
and 2 to proceed against immovable property of the
borrower, which pointed out by the guarantor through
Ext.P3. It is made clear that the petitioner being a
guarantor is equally liable for payment of the arrears and
the liability is co-existence with that of the borrower.
However, in order to meet the ends of justice, the Writ
Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take
effective steps to proceed against the property pointed out
as available in ownership and possession of the 4th
4
WP(C) No. 27427/2010
respondent, at the earliest possible. It is made clear that
the movable property belonging to the petitioner can be
proceeded against only if the amounts is not receivable
through such steps taken.
5. In order to facilitate the respondents 1 and 2 to
proceed against the properties of the 4th respondent with
such steps as directed above, sale of immovable property if
any belonging to the petitioner and further steps of
recovery against his person and movables shall be kept in
abeyance for a period of two months. It is made clear that
the immovable property belonging to the petitioner can be
held under attachment and further action can be taken only
subject to outcome of the proceedings initiated as directed
above.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc