IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY,THE20H DAY OF FEBRUARY20141ST PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 976 of 2014 (V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- A.YASODARAN AGED56YEARS S/O. K. AYYAPPAN, MELEVILA HOUSE, KODUNGANOOR PO K.K.P.NAGAR, KULASEKHARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695013. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ANANTHAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.184 KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. SMT.P.MAYA, AGED45YEARS D/O.PADMAVATHI, TC22339(1), AYYAPPA NIVAS ATTUKAL, MANACAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING ATTC221032, S.M.BHAVAN, ATTUKAL PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAILWAYS, THYCAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2002-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 976 of 2014 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST SENT TO THE3D RESPONDENT BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED65/2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE sou. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C)No.976 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of February, 2014
The petitioner, who retired from the service of the Railway Police, as a Sub Inspector of Police was before this Court contending that he stood as a guarantor for a loan availed of, by the 2nd respondent who was continuing in service and the first respondent is now attempting to deduct the amounts due in the loan from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. The amounts sought to be deducted from the retirement benefits of the petitioner, being amounts originally borrowed by the 2nd respondent, it was his contention that, recovery steps should be initiated against the 2nd respondent and only then, against the surety. That proposition would go against the established principle of joint and several liability, WPC.976/2014 :
2. : which the petitioner had willingly undertaken, when he executed an agreement guaranteeing the repayment of the loans availed of by the 2nd respondent.
2. Be that as it may, an interim order was granted at the time of admission on 10.01.2014, since equity demanded that the original borrower has the primary responsibility to clear the debt, she availed. Later, when the order came up for extension, it was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that in fact, the 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. In such circumstance, the writ petition was posted today, on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has today, filed a not-pressed memo contending that the entire amounts due to the 1st respondent has been settled. It is also submitted across the Bar that the counsel WPC.976/2014 :
3. : was also not informed about the relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
3. It has to be found that the petitioner has attempted a clear abuse of process of this Court. The petitioner has not disclosed his relationship with the 2nd respondent. The learned Government Pleader would produce along with a memo, a Data Input sheet filed by the petitioner, at the time of his retirement, wherein the 2nd respondent is shown as his wife. It is also further declared that she is unemployed. The averments made in the writ petition are clearly intended to mislead this Court. The petitioner is a person who has retired from a disciplined force which is supposed to preserve and maintain law and order. This Court, cannot ignore the reprehensible action of the petitioner, in attempting to mislead this Court by not disclosing the entire fact and thus swearing to a false affidavit, before this Court. WPC.976/2014 :
4. In the above circumstance, the 3rd respondent is directed to recover an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) from the petitioner's retirement benefits and deposit the same to the Kerala Mediation Centre, being the Nodal Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution in the State. Writ petition dismissed with costs as indicated above. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma ( true copy )