IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.28469 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Venkat Ram Reddy S/o. Late K. Venkat Ram Narsimha Reddy R/o. H.No. 2-2-392, Kishanpura, Hanumakonda, Warangal. 2 Smt. K. Haritha W/o. Shashi Kiran Reddy R/o. H.No.2-2-392, Kishanpura, Hanumakonda, Warangal. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Warangal Branch, Beside District Central Library, Bala samudram, Hanamkonda, rep. by its Senior Manager. 2 The Senior Branch Manager, The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Warangal Branch, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in executing a registered release deed in respect of the premises/house bearing No. 2-2-392, situated at Naim Nagar, Kishanpura, in pursuance of the Mortgage Deed dated 3-6-2003 executed between the 2nd petitioner and another and the respondents herein as arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjust and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to execute the registered release deed in favour of the 1st petitioner in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.28469 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner has mortgaged his house bearing municipal No.2-2-392 situated at Hanamkonda, Warangal District, towards security for the loan obtained by his daughter from the 1st respondent Corporation, by executing a registered mortgage deed dated 03.06.2003. It is the case of the petitioners that the said loan amount was repaid in total and the loan account was closed. The petitioners complain that though all the documents have been released pursuant to the closure of the loan account and the hypothecation was cancelled, the respondents are not executing a registered release deed in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of the aforesaid premises, which is obligatory on their part. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on instructions, submits that the respondents are willing to execute the registered release deed in favour of the 1st petitioner, which they are bound to do on closure of the loan account. In view of the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to execute the registered release deed in favour of the 1st petitioner as required under the law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 31st December, 2008 IBL