(1.) THE prohibitory order issued by the concerned respondent and the notice issued by way of coercive steps, causing the salary of the petitioner to be attached in respect of the alleged default under a chit run by the first respondent is the subject-matter of the dispute in this Writ Petition.
(2.) THE petitioner is working as a teacher in the fourth respondent school and was a subscriber to the chitty bearing No.4/01-24 run by the respondents 1 and 2, (The Kerala State Financial Enterprises-a State Government concern) in the Chengannur branch, having a prize value of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs). The monthly installment to be effected was at the rate of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand), in tune with the terms of the chit the 'variola', a copy of which has been produced as Ext. R-l(b). The petitioner has effected the first installment, which undoubtedly has gone to the 'foreman', as in the case of all subscribers to the chit. In the next month, the petitioner participated in the 'auction' and the chit was prized in the name of the petitioner on 30-4-2001 as revealed from Ext. R-l(a) produced along with the statement filed by respondents 1 to 3. On prizing the chit as above, the petitioner was made to execute a receipt for the 'auction difference', in so far as the chit was prized for a total sum of Rs. 2,10,000 (Rupees two lakhs ten ' thousand only); thus resulting in a discount of Rs. 90,000 (Rupees ninety thousand). Accordingly, the petitioner executed R-l(a) receipt for the auction difference, stating that she had received a sum of Rs. 90,000 (Rupees ninety thousand) in cash from the concerned respondent.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that, by virtue of the specific mandate, particularly under Section 17 of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 ('Act' in short), the prized amount was liable to be deposited in a scheduled bank and the failure in this regard on the part of the concerned respondent is to attract penal consequence as well, which is stated as punishable under sub-section 5 of Section 17. Without causing the said amount to be deposited, the respondents have made unlawful gains in some or other manner, finally leading to the coercive proceedings taken on 2007, which is stated as nothing but arbitrary and illegal in all respects.