LAWS(KER)-2020-6-257

K. PREMANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Decided On June 10, 2020
K. Premanandan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA And ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is directed against the interim order dtd. 19/3/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8428/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to stay the proceedings pertaining to Exts.P1 and P1(a) prohibitory orders issued by the Special Tahasildar (RR), Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Neyyattinkara to the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram, requesting to recover an amount of Rs.2,24,537.00 along with interest @ 18 1/2 % from the appellant on account of the guarantee extended by the appellant in a chitty and loan transactions of the 8th respondent, in the appeal. Shorn of unnecessary details, necessary facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

(2.) Appellant is working as an Administrative Assistant in the Forest Department. Appellant stood as surety to the 8th respondent, who is a subscriber to chitty No.6/2012 and two ticket Nos.36 & 77, conducted by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thirumala Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, a State Government undertaking. The total sala of the chitty was Rs.5,00,000.00 and chitty was for a period of 100 months and the subscriber was liable to pay installments of Rs.5,000.00 per month, spanning over a period from 31/12/2012 to 12/4/2020. The Special Deputy Tahasildar (RR) has issued Exts.P1 and P1(a) prohibitive orders requesting his employer to recover the amount from the salary of the appellant. According to the appellant, on realising the situation, appellant approached the 8th respondent and it was informed that the 8th respondent has filed W.P.(C) No.27297/2018 before this Court, and later it was known that the said writ petition was disposed of as per the judgment dtd. 15/10/2018. Again, when the appellant contacted the 8th respondent appellant was informed that Ext.P2 arbitration proceedings is instituted before the Registrar of Chits, Kerala (The Inspector General of Registration) as per Rule 3 of the Kerala Chit Fund Rules, 2012 and claims are raised under sec. 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 r/w rule 47 of the Kerala Chit Funds Rules, 2012.

(3.) The case therefore projected by the appellant is that since dispute a is raised by the principal debtor i.e., the subscriber to the chitty transaction, the action initiated by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited through the Special Tahsildar (RR) to recover the amounts at a time when an adjudication pending before a statutory authority is illegal and arbitrary, liable to be interfered with by the writ court.