YMUNA Vs. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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 instalment 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. R1(b). The petitioner has effected the first instalment, 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 30/04/2001 as revealed from Ext. R1(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', insofar 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 R1(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.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, when the petitioner approached the second respondent for disbursing the amount, onerous conditions were imposed, virtually making the petitioner impossible to have the security satisfied to obtain the due amount. As such, no agreement was executed and the petitioner did not remit any further instalment as well. On enquiry, the petitioner was given to understand that the balance liability, if at all any, will be finalized only on conclusion of the chit.

(3.) While so, the petitioner was served with a notice in the year 2007, asking her to satisfy the liability stated as due to the respondents in respect of the chit transaction. Pursuant to this, the petitioner filed a complaint/objection on 27/01/2007, pointing out the actual facts and figures. In spite of this, Ext. P1 notice was issued by the second respondent on 30/03/2007, casting a huge liability upon the petitioner, though the prized amount was never disbursed to the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner preferred Ext. P2 complaint before the concerned Minister, which however did not yield any positive result. Ext. P3 notice dated 13/04/2007 followed and the petitioner was served with Ext. P3(a) Prohibitory Order, issued by the third respondent, whereby the salary of the petitioner to an extent of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) per month was caused to be attached towards the alleged liability, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.