IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 28551 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.SREEDHARAN,AGED 50 YEARS,, S/O.KRISHNANAN CHETTIAR,'DEEPAM' THRIKKANDIYUR, TIRUR PO, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 676 104. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.HASHIR SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYA BANK LTD.,BANGALORE 560 001. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,VIJAYA BANK, ERNAKULAM 682 016. 4. THE MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, TIRUR BRANCH,TIRUR PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 505. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R3 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R3 SRI.T.K.BABY (ERNAKULAM) FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28551/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF SETTLEMENT DATED 29/11/1999 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECIEPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.3,50,000/- ON 29/11/1999 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NO LIABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK DATED 14/12/1999 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/5/2010 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/5/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 2/11/2010 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, TIRUR DATED 13/2/2011 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 18/2/2011 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUB COURT, TIRUR IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P8 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN DATED 15/9/2011 EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 10/10/2011 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF PANDINHARAYIL DEVAKI EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF KUTTIKANDIYIL SANTHA //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28551 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P7 and P13 and to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P6 compliant filed by the petitioner in the light of Exts.P8, P9, P14 and P15. 3. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the 1st respondent disposing of Ext.P6 complaint filed by the petitioner and Ext.P13 is a further communication issued by the 1st respondent declining to reopen the complaint of the petitioner. The subject matter of the complaint is mainly regarding the alleged refusal of the Bank in returning the document of title bearing No.81/1980 registered with Tanur SRO concerning 80.25 cents of land in Sy.No.46/12 of Ernanellor Amsom, Tirur Taluk, which was mortgaged by the petitioner for availing of financial assistance. It is stated that after availing of the loan as above, petitioner committed default, which led to the filing of OS 77/1997 by the Bank before the Sub Court, Tirur. The suit was decreed and in E.P 46/98 filed by the WPC No.28551/11 :2 : decree holder, the matter was settled by paying the amounts due to the Bank. 4. The present complaint of the petitioner is that the document of title which was deposited by the bank and which the Bank made use of before the Civil Court was not returned to him. On the other hand, the Bank took a stand to the contrary. It is this stand of the Bank which was accepted by the Ombudsman and it was accordingly that the complaint was closed as per Ext.P7. 5. A reading of Ext.P7 would give the impression that the 1st respondent proceeded on the basis that in 1999, the documents were returned. However, immediately after Ext.P7 order was rendered by the Ombudsman, petitioner approached the Sub Court, Tirur by filing an application under the Right to Information Act and obtained Ext.P9 which indicates that the document in question was returned to the counsel for the Bank on 27/1/2000. If that be so, prima facie the premise on which the 1st respondent has proceeded in Ext.P7 order is incorrect. 6. On account of the above and also on account of Ext.P13 where the 1st respondent refused to reopen the WPC No.28551/11 :3 : complaint, I feel the matter needs reexamination. In order to enable such reexamination by the 1st respondent, I quash Exts.P7 and P13 and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter with notice to the parties concerned and as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say that the contentions of both sides are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp