By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 25.01.2012 and further be pleased to command the respondent authorities to direct the concerned department as per the representation at AnnexureB to the petition. (B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, by way of mandatory order, respondent No.2 authority be directed to deduct the salary of the members of the petitioner no.1 bank on a requisition made by the petitioner no.1 bank.”
2. The brief facts as narrated in the petition are as under:
2.1 The petitioner no.1 is a cooperative Bank registered under the provisions of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and got the license from the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The petitioner no.1 is advancing loan to its members and installment of the members is required to be deducted from his/her salary by the Drawing Officer. As per Section 50 of the Act, in case of member of the bank executing an agreement in favour of the petitioner no.1 bank, his employer is competent to deduct from the salary or wages payable to the employee by the employer.
3. Mr.B.S.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after commencement of the Act and considering the provisions of Section 50(2) and (3) of the Act, the respondents on behalf of the Cooperative Department, addressed a letter to all departments of respondent no.1 verifying the recovery under the said provisions and subsequently, after considering the same the respondent no.1 issued the circular to make the payment to the society as per the provision of Section 50 of the Act by circular dated 10.12.1963. He has further contended that the circular has not been cancelled or withdrawn by the respondent no.1 and all the departments working under the respondent no.1 are bound by the same. In fact, respondent no.1 is under the statutory obligation under Section 50 of the Act for deduction of the amount from the salary of the members of the petitioner bank but, unfortunately, under one or other reason, the respondent authorities have failed to discharge their statutory duty.
4. It is further contended that in view of the resolution, the respondent authorities were bound to clarify regarding surety because surety's liability is coextensive to the principal debtor.
5. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the guarantor is equally liable as the debtor. In my view, though there are different directions issued by the Competent Courts, they cannot be challenged without adjudicating the issue between the parties. The recovery from the guarantors can be made only after the passing of decree by a Competent Court. Therefore, the decision of the State Government is just and proper.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, no interference is called for and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J] siddharth//