KOCHU SANKOO. K Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THE MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK AND K.C. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the guarantor to a loan availed of by the fourth respondent from the third respondent. The fourth respondent has obviously committed default and Ext. P1 Revenue recovery notice issued to the petitioner is impugned in this writ petition. The bank points out that the revenue recovery proceedings have been simultaneously initiated against the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent. It is also pointed out that the bank is willing for a one -time settlement if the petitioner and the fourth respondent comes up with concrete proposal.

(2.) IT is trite law that the liability of the guarantor is co -extensive with that of the principal loanee and that the liability is joint and several. Therefore no infirmity can be pointed out against Ext. P1 revenue recovery notice issued to the petitioner by the second respondent at the instance of the third respondent bank. The petitioner laments that he is only a retired employee of the Railways whereas the fourth respondent is very much in service in the Railways. It is for the third respondent to take appropriate action against the loanee as well as the guarantor to realise the amount due to them with expectation.