IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V ND FRIDAY, THE 2 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 27837 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

THEVALAKKARA PANCHAYATH AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. Q1556 THEVALAKKARA P.O., PIN - 690524.

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GOPIKA R, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.

SARNGADHARAN, RESIDING AT KANNAKKARA VADAKATHIL CHAVARA (B) P.O., KOLLAM BY ADVS.

BIJITH S.KHAN N.ANAND RAJESH O.N.

HARIKRISHNAN K.U.

RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20 ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2 DEPARTMENT OF POST POST DIRECTORATE DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110001.

REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POST.

3 POSTMASTER OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER, KARUNANGAPILLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690518.

4 STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

5 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES JAWAHAR SAHAKARNA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.

6 NADIRSHA A PERIYANTAYYATHU NADUVILAKKARA THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690524 SRI.S.MANU, DSGI SMT.MABLE C. KURIEN, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the Thevalakkara Panchayat Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society. They contend that a certain Vidhaydharan Pillai, a member of the Society, availed an agricultural loan for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 7.4.2018 based on Ext.P1 loan agreement. The 6th respondent herein, a certain Nadirsha, stood as surety. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid Nadirsha consented to the Society for recovery from his salary if the principal debtor commits default in paying the monthly installments. They contend that the 3rd respondent has witnessed, consented, and attested to the agreement as is revealed from Ext.P2. When Vidhyadharan Pillai committed default, steps were taken to realize the amount from the surety. It is contended that in exercise of powers conferred under Section 37, the Society requested the disbursing authority, the Postmaster, to deduct the amounts from the salary of the 6th respondent by issuing Ext.P5 requisition. The 3rd respondent, however, refused to consider the request by holding that the existing Rules do not permit recovery from pay and allowances other than Court attachments. Challenging Ext.P6, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner has also sought for direction to the 3rd respondent to effect recovery from the salary of the 6th respondent.

2. A statement has been filed by the DSGI for and on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that the 3rd respondent, in his capacity as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, has not entered into any agreement with the Society undertaking to recover any outstanding amount. It is stated that all that has been done by the 3rd respondent is attest the employment certificate of the 6th respondent wherein the details of his service/salary has been furnished. It is stated that the employment certificate will not translate into an agreement to recover dues from the salary of the 6th respondent. It is further stated that respondents 1 to 3 are not bound by any private agreement entered into by the petitioner and the 6th respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that in Ext.P6, all that has been stated is that the recovery of the amount other than Court attachments is not possible. It is submitted that the contentions raised by the respondents in the statement filed before this Court cannot be used to supplement what has been stated in Ext.P6 order. It is further submitted that a perusal of Ext.P2 would disclose that the Postmaster, Karunagapally, has confirmed and accepted the personal sureties for payment of loan and that the employment certificate/ recovery undertaking has been signed. It is submitted that even if it is taken that the Postmaster