IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 25954 of 2009(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VIJAYAKUMAR, 57 YEARS, S/O.PETER, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, H.NO.XI/354, KODIKUTHUMALA, ASHOKAPURAM.P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, HSBC BANK, HARBOUR VIEW RESIDENCY,OPP.TO SHIPYARD, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 015. 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI-400 001. R1 BY ADV. MR.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE. R2 BY ADV. MR.JACOB VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 25954 of 2009-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “1. Direct the respondent to issue to the petitioner copies of all the documents related the loan transaction he had with the 1st respondent bank and the securitization proceedings against the petitioner by the 1st respondent. 2. Grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that there is absolutely no merit in the averments raised in this Writ Petition and that no writ will lie against the first respondent. It is also stated that no bonafides are there, on the part of the petitioner, in so far as he has sought to approach this Court nearly two years after the transaction and that the first respondent is not bound to keep the documents beyond the stipulated time, as per the Bank's regulations. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of Ext.P3 representation filed before the first respondent was W.P(C) No. 25954 of 2009-L 2 also forwarded to the second respondent and as per Ext.P5, the second respondent/Reserve Bank of India has instructed the first respondent Bank to do the needful. The petitioner admittedly has not filed any specific representation before the second respondent and no failure of duty is attributed or established on the part of the second respondent, so as to justify the issuance of Writ of Mandamus against the second respondent. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent fairly submits that, notwithstanding the contentions raised, the first respondent Bank will make an earnest effort to find out whether any records are available and if the records are traced out, the copies of the same will definitely to be provided to the petitioner, on payment of the requisite expenses in this regard. 4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to approach the first respondent for serving copies of the relevant records and this Court records the submission made from the part of the first respondent as mentioned herein before to give effect to Ext.P5 issued by the second respondent/Reserve Bank of India. The writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ab JUDGE //True Copy//