IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36444 of 2010(E)
1. K.GANGADARAN, S/O.LATE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER,
3. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK
4. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SHANOJ
For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC, S.MALABAR G. BANK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 36444 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers.
(1) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other
writ of direction directing the respondents to stay
the multiple simultaneous recovery proceeding
against the petitioner and directing the
respondents to recover the amount from the
petitioner one after one.
(2) To reduce the quantum of monthly
recovery amount from the petitioner.
(3) Directing to stay all the recovery
proceeding against the petitioner.
(4) To grant such other relief as may be
prayed for and which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.
It is evident that the petitioner is having various
liabilities with respect to financial assistance availed from
respondents 1 to 4. It is submitted that, with respect to
amounts due to respondents 1 and 3 Banks, decrees were
already passed by the civil courts and execution petitions
are pending. With respect to amounts due to the 4th
2
WP(C) No. 36444/2010
respondent, steps are initiated by recovery from the salary
of the petitioner. It is further noticed that the amounts are
also due to the second respondent Bank.
2. It is stated that the petitioner is employed in KSRTC
and he is now physically incapacitated due to injuries
sustained in an accident which occurred in the year 2002.
Ext.P2 salary slip is produced to show that the petitioner is
at present having a take-home salary of Rs.3,226/- only,
after deducting the existing liabilities. Therefore
apprehension of the petitioner is that if steps are initiated
by all the respondents, the petitioner will be deprived of his
livelihood.
3. Considering the fact that various amounts are due
to different respondents, I am not at all inclined to restrain
the steps initiated for recovery of such amounts from the
salary of the petitioner. However it is made clear that such
recovery can be effected only to the extent of limitations
stipulated under Section 80 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery
3
WP(C) No. 36444/2010
Act.
Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is
dismissed with the observations as noted above.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc