The petitioner, the original borrower availed of a loan from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is an employee under the 3rd respondent. On default being committed in the loan account, the petitioner was proceeded against for recovery. 2. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the salary deductions were made only for two months and thereafter no deductions were made, since there was a stay from this Court. But however, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the interim order was not complied with and no deposit was made as per the order dated 16.06.2005. The only ground raised in the writ petition is regarding computation. For which, the remedy available is elsewhere. In any event, such computation cannot be looked into in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. The 2nd respondent shall issue a statement of WPC.18136/2005 : 2 :
the amounts due as on 15.11.2014 within two weeks by registered post to the petitioner. If the petitioner does not pay the amount within one month therefrom, the 3rd respondent shall continue deduction as sought for by the 2nd respondent. The respondent Bank shall also be entitled to proceed with any other recovery proceedings, if so advised.
Writ petition dismissed with the above direction.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge