IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10962 of 2008(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M. VALSAN, KOTTUKULAM THAZHE HOUSE, RANHIPALAM POST, CIVIL STATION POST, CALICUT-673 020. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, GOVINDAPURAM, CALICUT. 2. THE SENIOR MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CALICUT MAIN BRANCH, K.P. KESAVA MENON ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ====================================== WRIT PETITION NO.10962 OF 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 10th day of April 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer of the writ petitioner is to quash Ext.P4, by which he was informed that his request for release of the documents has been referred to the zonal authorities and that their instructions are awaited. 2. Petitioner was an employee of the respondent Bank, against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated and that resulted in his dismissal. He raised a dispute and that was the subject matter of an industrial dispute as I.D.3/2003 on the file of the Labour Court, Kozhikode. An award was rendered directing reinstatement and imposing a lesser punishment of altering his seniority and forfeiture of back wages. According to the Bank, they have challenged the award in a writ petition which is pending before this Court. 3. While the petitioner was an employee of the Bank, he had availed of a loan for the security of which he had offered his property as security. As is evident from Ext.P3, the loan availed of by the petitioner has been closed by him and this is certified by the bank as per Ext.P3 dated 10.3.2008. Thereafter when he made request for W.P.(C)10962/2008 2 release of the documents, response came by Ext.P4 saying that they are awaiting instructions from the higher authorities. 4. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel who appeared for the respondents. The fact that the documents were deposited only as security for housing loan availed of by the petitioner is not in dispute, in my view, once the petitioner has discharged his liability, the bank is obliged to release the documents. It may be the procedure of the Bank to obtain the clearance from those high in the hierarchy, but that cannot be a reason for the inordinate delay for the release of the documents mortgaged by a borrower. Once the liability is cleared by a customer, the Bank is equally duty bound to return the documents. For these reasons I do not find any justification for the refusal of the bank to release the documents. Accordingly, Ext.P4 will stand quashed and the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the production of the copy of the judgment, the respondents shall release the title documents of the petitioner’s property deposited by the petitioner in connection with the loan which is certified to be closed as per Ext.P3. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/