High Court of KeralaRP/230/2015allowed

V.V.Rosy v. The Secretary

2015-03-24Honourable Mr.Justice K.Surendra Mohan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/3RD CHAITHRA, 1937 RP.No. 230 of 2015 (F) IN WP(C).21059/2014 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21059/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-08-2014 REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- V.V.ROY AGED 55 YEARS S/O. VARIJAKSHAN, CONDUCTOR, KSRTC ERNAKULAM 682016 RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE PUTHUVYPE PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682508 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) RESPONDENTS / R1 TO R4 & PETITIONER:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. THE SECRETARY KARTHEDOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.123 MALIPPURAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICRT, PIN-682511

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695014 DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KSRTC, ERNAKULAM 682016

3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC ERNAKULAM 682016

4. BINDU, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. V.V ROY, PALLATHU HOUSE, PUTHUVYPU PO ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682508

5. UNNIKRISHNAN CT,, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.THANKAPPAN, NAMBRATHIL , THARAYIL NAYARAMBALAM PO, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682120 R BY ADV.SRI.B.BALA PRASANNAN R BY ADV.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RP.No. 230 of 2015 (F) IN WP(C).21059/2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE - A1 : COPY OF THE DUTY PASS ISSUED TO THE REVIEW PETITION BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION ANNEXURE - A2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.8.2014 IN WP(C).NO.21059/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

------------------------------------ R.P.No.230 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.21059 of 2014 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2015

O R D E R

The 5th respondent in W.P(C).No.21059/2014 has filed this petition seeking review of the judgment dated 13.08.2014 by which the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petition was dismissed without issuing notice to the respondents. In the judgment, it has been directed that the 1st respondent was free to recover the dues from the immovable properties as well as salaries of respondents 4 and 5. The contention of the 5th respondent is that, he was in no way involved in the loan transaction with the 1st respondent. The principal debtor was the 4th respondent, who is his wife. Since the petitioner was neither a surety nor the principal debtor, no recovery could be made from his salary, it is contended. However, in view of the direction contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed, he has been informed that recovery could be made from his salary by the 1st respondent.

2. This review petition has been heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC have no dispute regarding the fact that the 5th respondent was not involved in the loan transaction. Since the 5th respondent was not a surety to the transaction nor the principal debtor, no recovery from his salary could be effected. Therefore, this judgment in so far as it directs

R.P.No.230 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.21059 of 2014 recoveries to be made from the salary of the 5th respondent requires to be reviewed and clarified.

This review petition is, therefore, allowed. The judgment dated 13.08.2014 in W.P.(C).No.21059/2014 is reviewed and clarified to the extent of directing that, the recovery by the 1st respondent shall be made from the salary of the 4th respondent in the writ petition alone, and not from the salary of the 5th respondent. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.