The liability of the guarantor is coextensive with that of the debtor, and the creditor has the right to obtain a decree against the surety and the principal debtor.

JUDGMENT

The undisputed facts unfolded in the writ petition are that the respondent No. 4 had obtained a loan to the extent of Rs.3,07,800 by virtue of the memorandum dated 19.12.1998 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition) and the petitioner herein stood as the guarantor on executing the instrument styled as the letter of guarantee (Annexure-R/3 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2) and also authorising the Inspector of Schools, Bishalgarh by the letter (Annexure-R/2 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2) that, if the borrower failed to repay the loan amount with interest accrued thereof partly or fully, deduction may be made from his monthly pay bill for repayment of the loan or interest of the said borrower till the full recovery of the said loan is made. The General Manager of the respondent No. 3 by the letter dated 22.08.2001 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition) had asked the petitioner for repayment of the outstanding amount to the extent of Rs. 2,56,500 as on 31.07.2001 alongwith interest to the extent of Rs.20,982 as on 31.03.2001 as the respondent No. 4 had not been repaying the instalments in terms of the sanction letter and the loan agreement.

2. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that he had executed the letter of guarantee (Annexure-R/3 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2) taking the responsibility of repayment of the full loan amount with interest or the outstanding thereof on account of failure of the respondent No. 4 in making the repayment.

3. The General Manager of the respondent No. 3 by a letter dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure-R/4 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2) had requested the Inspector of Schools (the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the petitioner) to recover a sum of Rs.3,000 per month from the salary bill of the petitioner till the amount of Rs. 2,77,482 as on 31.03.2001 was recovered. The Inspector of Schools had also received a reminder from the said General Manager of the respondent No. 3 in the form of a letter dated 04.02.2002 (Annexure-R/5 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2). Thereafter, the Inspector of Schools, by the memorandum dated 24.04.2002 (Annexure-R/6 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2) has made the following order:

So on the strength of the undertaking executed by the employees concerned at the time of his/her availing of the loan, we have been requested by the Bank Authority to effect Recovery of such dues from his/her salary month of April,2002 payable in May, 2002 onwards till the Recovery outstanding Loan is completed @ Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only per month and will remit the same to the respective Bank by the undersigned in due time.

4. The petitioner did not raise any objection, at least no record has been placed before this court except Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is a representation made to the Director of School Education, Govt. of Tripura (the respondent No. 2 herein) on February, 2004, stating that "Unfortunately, from May,2002 monthly deduction @ Rs. 3,000/- is being effected from my salary. The said deduction are being made without giving any copy of any order of deduction. I state that the order of deduction is illegal, unwarranted and without any authority of law. I state that I am a poor Government employee and the deduction is causing severe hardships to me".

5. By filing this writ petition, the said guarantor has challenged the decision of recovery embodied in the letter dated 22.08.2001 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition). It appears that even after the representation dated February, 2004, it has been stated, that the petitioner had met the General Manager of the Corporation (the respondent No. 3 herein) and urged him to sell the hypothecated vehicle for realisation of the outstanding amount, but it did not appear from the records placed by the petitioner that he