M.Vinayachandran Nair vs The Thiruvananthapuram District on 6 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17435 of 2009(Y)


1. M.VINAYACHANDRAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
                       ...       Respondent

2. LAY SECRETARY & TREASURER,

3. JAYAN S.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.R.GOPU

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHAN,SC,TVM.DIST.CO.OP.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :06/07/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ================
                  W.P.(C) NO. 17435 OF 2009 (Y)
                  =====================

              Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was one of the sureties to a loan availed of by the

3rd respondent from the 1st respondent Co-operative Bank. The

loan was availed of during the year 1998-99. Default was

committed and Ext.P1 notice was issued to the Administrative

Officer of the Department, in which the petitioner is working.

Petitioner contested the liability by Exts.P2 and P3. Finally, the

Bank issued Ext.P4 requiring recovery of the amount due at the

rate of Rs.3,500/- per month. It is challenging the recovery, the

writ petition is filed.

2. Evidently, petitioner has undertaken to discharge the

liability and also agreed for recovery from his salary. If that be

so, there is nothing illegal in the proceedings initiated by the Bank

by Ext.P4. Petitioner submits that default was committed at the

inception itself if the Bank had taken timely action, the liability

would have been much less than what it is today and that

therefore, he should not be penalised for the latches on the part

of the Bank.

WPC 17435/09
:2 :

3. In my view, if the petitioner has a case that the

recovery is unjustified or that the amount that is sought to be

realised is not due, this is a monetary dispute and it is for the

petitioner to pursue the matter before the statutory authorities.

In any case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has

given undertaking, a copy of which has been produced by the

Bank as Ext.R1(a) along with the counter affidavit, the recovery

proposed from his salary cannot be faulted.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd

respondent, the principal debtor is willing to discharge the liability

by paying monthly instalment of Rs.5,000/- each and accepting

such payment, he should be exonerated from monthly recovery

as proposed in Ext.P4. If as stated, the 3rd respondent is willing to

discharge the liability in the manner as indicated above, I leave it

open to the petitioner to raise the matter before the 1st

respondent, in which event, the Bank shall consider the request of

the petitioner for relieving from recovery from his salary.

Writ petition is dismissed, but however without prejudice to

WPC 17435/09
:3 :

the contentions of the petitioner and clarifying that it will be open

to the petitioner to pursue his case before the statutory

authorities.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp