- (1.) In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the validity of the letter bearing No. TA/EST/116 dated 31.1.2000 whereby rental dues in respect of quarter in occupation of respondent No. 6 has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner and also for quashing the letter dated 29.3.2000 whereby petitioner's representation has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's obligation as a guarantor can only be nullified either by substitution of other guarantor or vacation of the quarter by respondent No. 6.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow cumpass : The petitioner is an engineer and he is in the employment of the respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation (in short 'Corporation'). In 1994 the Corporation came cut with a circular being Circular No. 1/94 dated 10.1.1994 for the purpose of allotting residential quarters on lease and licence basis to those employees who have been relieved under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The period of allotment was fixed for maximum of 11 months subject to the condition that a person must stand as a guarantor and execute surety bond. Under the said scheme respondent No. 6 was allotted quarter for a period of 11 months effective from 3rd March, 1994 and the petitioner became the guarantor and executed bond for the said period of licence. The said agreement was again renewed for a period of 11 months and a fresh bond was executed by the petitioner on 8.1.1996 which expired on 7.12.1996. Petitioner's case is that after expiry of the said period of licence i.e. 7.12.1996 respondent No. 6 again approached the petitioner to become guarantor and execute a fresh bond but the petitioner refused to continue as a guarantor. However, even after expiry of the licence-period the respondent No. 6 was allowed to continue in the quarter without renewal of the licence agreement. It is stated by the petitioner that he, by his letter dated 23.10.1998, informed the respondent-Corporation that respondent No. 6 has attained the age of 58 years and 5 months and he was not liable as a guarantor if respondent No. 6 is allowed to continue in the quarter. In July, 1999 the petitioner received a letter dated 31.7.1999 which was addressed to respondent No. 6 wherein the Corporation allowed respondent No. 6 to renew the lease and licence agreement upto the age of 60 years and 3 months. In the year, 2000 the petitioner received a letter dated 31.1.2000 whereby the petitioner was informed that respondent No. 6 had not paid the monthly rental dues and there was a total outstanding of Rs. 70.080.50 paise. The petitioner was also informed that the aforesaid amount is being recovered from his salary bill in view of his status as a guarantor in terms of Circular No. 1/94. The petitioner seriously opposed the said action of the Corporation by filing a representation which, however, was rejected and the order of rejection was communicated vide letter dated 29.3.2000.
(3.) The respondents case in the counter affidavit is that after expiry of lease and licence agreement on 7.2.1996 the petitioner again executed a surety bond on 26.3.1996 for extension of lease and licence. The petitioner again executed surety bond on 29.7.1997 in favour of the licensee for further extension of lease and licence agreement. Copies of these surety bond have been annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the counter affidavit. Respondents further case is that the petitioner himself submitted surety bond on 29.7.1997 and, therefore, he is liable under the surety bond. It is stated that the licensee was repeatedly directed to renew the agreement and vacate the quarter but the licensee neither substituted the guarantor nor vacate the quarter. Hence, the liability of the petitioner remains till the vacation of the quarter by the licensee.;