IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14205 of 2009 Between: State Bank of India, Nizamabad Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Warehousing Corporation, Nizamabad Branch, Rep. by its Warehousing Manager. 2 Sri Maheswari & Co., Rep. by is partner Sri A. Srinivas Goud, 6-26-1630, Shraddnand Gunj, Nizamabad. 3 M/s. Om Sri Yogeswara General Merchants, Rep. by Sri Mamidi Prakash, Shraddnand Gunj, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order or Writ more particularly the one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st Respondent Corporation in delivering the hypothecated stock of 917 bags of maize grains lying in the premises of the 1st Respondent Corporation to the Petitioner Bank is high handed, arbitrary, illegal and consequentially to direct the 1st Respondent Corporation to deliver the said hypothecated stock of 917 bags of maize grain lying in the premises of the 1st Respondent worth Rs. 7.50 lakhs to the Petitioner Bank. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14205 OF 2009 ORDER : The 2nd respondent herein availed a cash credit from the petitioner Bank by hypothecation of stocks of Maize and Turmeric. It is alleged that the hypothecated goods belonging to the 2nd respondent were shifted to the 1st respondent Corporation without notice to the petitioner Bank. The petitioner came to know that the said stocks were sold to the 3rd respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 in collusion with each other are trying to lift the stock from the premises of the 1st respondent Corporation. By letter dated 10.07.2009, the petitioner Bank, while informing the 1st respondent that it is holding a charge over the stock in question, requested the Corporation not to release the stocks to the respondents 2 or 3. However, the 1st respondent Corporation by letter dated 10.7.2009 rejected the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that action of the 1st respondent in not delivering the hypothecated stock to the petitioner Bank is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. On the face of it, the matter does not involve enforcement of any legal right or statutory obligation. The dispute raised by the petitioner is nothing but its claim for recovery of loan based upon the hypothecation agreement executed by the 2nd respondent. Absolutely no case is made out to show that the 1st respondent Corporation has acted in breach of any statutory obligation. In the circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy available to it under common law for redressal of its grievance. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 15.07.2009 Note: - CC by tomorrow. (B/O) gbs