1. These six writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No. 610 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 611 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 612 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 613 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 614 of 2024, and W.P.(C) No. 615 of 2024, involves common questions of law and fact. The petitioner in all these proceedings is the same individual, serving as a G. Operator under the State of Tripura, who stood as a guarantor for six different principal borrowers. Since the nature of the challenge against the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent-Corporation is identical in all these matters, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The core grievance of the petitioner in each of these petitions is that he stood as a guarantor for the respective principal borrowers, impleaded as the private respondents herein, who had availed business loans from the respondent-Tripura Other Backward Classes Co-operative Development Corporation Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that upon the alleged default by the principal borrowers in repaying the loan installments, the respondent-Corporation issued various communications to the Petitioner’s Drawing and Disbursing Officer (Respondent No. 4), directing the deduction of specified monthly amounts from the petitioner's salary to recover the outstanding loan dues.

3. In W.P.(C) No. 610 of 2024, the petitioner challenges the Letter dated 16.08.2022 issued by the General Manager of the Corporation directing the recovery of outstanding dues pertaining to the loan of Raju Ghosh amounting to Rs. 2,85,000/-, through monthly deductions of Rs. 8,000/- from the petitioner’s salary. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the said letter and exoneration from the liability of the guarantee.

4. In W.P.(C) No. 611 of 2024, the challenge is directed against the Letter dated 30.08.2022, concerning a loan amount of Rs. 4,75,000/-availed by Pinki Acharjee, whereunder a recovery of Rs. 12,000/- per month has been ordered from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner prays for the setting aside of the said communication and to be exempted from the liability and accrued interest.

5. In W.P.(C) No. 612 of 2024, the petitioner seeks to quash the Letter dated 31.08.2022, which pertains to a loan of Rs. 2,25,000/-sanctioned in favor of Nirmal Ghosh. The respondent-Corporation has directed a monthly deduction of Rs. 6,000/- from the petitioner’s salary, which the petitioner seeks to set aside along with a prayer for exoneration from the guarantee.

6. In W.P.(C) No. 613 of 2024, the petitioner contests the letter dated 25.09.2023, regarding a loan of Rs. 4,75,000/- availed by Dulal Ghosh. The communication directs the DDO to deduct Rs. 12,000/- per month from the petitioner’s salary. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to quash the recovery notice and to relieve him from his obligations as a guarantor.

7. In W.P.(C) No. 614 of 2024, the impugned communication is the Letter dated 13.03.2023, concerning a loan of Rs. 2,85,000/-. While the loan was in the name of the respondent no. 5, the petitioner alleges the transaction involved her husband, Rakesh Datta. The Corporation has directed a recovery of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the petitioner's salary, the quashing of which is sought in this petition along with the relief of exoneration.

8. In W.P.(C) No. 615 of 2024, the petitioner challenges the Letter dated 02.12.2021, whereunder a monthly recovery of Rs. 10,000/- was directed against a loan of Rs. 4,75,000/- availed by Shyamal Tanti. The petitioner seeks the quashing of this recovery notice and a direction to the respondents to refrain from acting in furtherance of the same.

9. In all the aforementioned petitions, the petitioner further seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from effecting any further recovery from his salary and has prayed for an exemption from the payment of interest accrued on the said loans.

10. Heard Partha Ranjan Sarkar, learned counsel and Mr. Prasanta Sen Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel along with Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel and Mr. Indrajit Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Tripura Other Backward Classess Co-operative Development Corporation Limited.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without first exhausting the remedies available against the principal borrowers, the respondent-Corporation issued communications to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner directing deduction of varying amounts from the petitioner's salary towards recovery of the outstanding loan dues. Learned counsel further contended that advocate notices were issued by the petitioner both to the respective borrowers and to the respondent-Corporation requesting the Corporation to recover the dues from the principal borrowers instead of effecting recovery from the petitioner. It is submitted that despite such requests, no effective action was initiated against the borrowers and the Corporation proceeded only against the petitioner by directing deduction from his salary. It is submitted that under the terms governing the loans, the Corporation ought to have proceeded against the borrowers upon default before invoking the guarantee. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed for quashing of the impugned recovery communications and for restraining the respondents from making deductions from the petitioner's salary.

12. Per contra, Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is an admitted position that the petitioner had voluntarily executed the deeds of guarantee in favour of the Corporation in respect of the loans advanced to the respective borrowers. Having undertaken the obligations of a guarantor, the petitioner cannot avoid the contractual liability arising from the guarantee merely because the principal borrowers have committed default. It is further submitted that the relationship between the parties is governed by the loan agreements and the deeds of guarantee executed by them. Upon default by the borrowers, the Corporation is legally entitled to recover the outstanding dues from either the principal borrowers or the guarantor in accordance with the terms of the contract and the applicable law.

13. Heard and perused the evidence on record.

14. Admittedly, the petitioner stood as guarantor for the loan amounts advanced by the respondent-Tripura Other Backward Classes Co-operative Development Corporation Limited, to the unofficial respondents. The respondent-Corporation, apart from its other functions, also finances eligible applicants in terms of the agreements executed between the parties. Obviously, there is an obligation on the part of the applicant who has obtained the loan to repay the amount, and upon failure to do so, it is open to the financial institution to proceed against the guarantor for recovery, as per its choice. Since public money is involved, the interest of the financial institution is paramount. However, it becomes the prima facie duty of the financial institution to exhaust its remedies for recovery from the ‘loanee’.

15. It is also seen from the record that no statement of account or other particulars have been placed on record by either of the parties. It is not for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus in a purely financial transaction arising out of a loan agreement. The dispute, being essentially contractual in nature, gives rise to a civil dispute for which the parties may avail the appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

16. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner could have availed the appropriate civil remedy. Adjudication of the present dispute would necessarily require examination of witnesses, marking of documents as exhibits, and appreciation of evidence in accordance with law. It is also noticed by this Court that the loan agreements produced by the respondent-Corporation contain certain unfilled blanks, with only one witness having signed the same. All these aspects give rise to disputed questions of fact, including those relating to repayment of the loan, the amounts outstanding, and the instalments, if any, paid from time to time. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the competent Civil Court, as stated hereinabove. No writ of mandamus can, therefore, be issued in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

17. Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner, if so advised, to approach the competent Civil Court seeking appropriate redressal. It is further made clear that both parties shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as are available to them in law before the Civil Court, and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.