IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18273 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.T.THOMAS, S/O.LATE T.THOMAS, MUNDUVELIKUNNEL HOUSE, THRIKODITHANAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOSHY THOMAS, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE THOMAS, THOOPUNKAL HOUSE, FATHIMAPURAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES, SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THRICKODITHANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.178, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.18273 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the second respondent Bank on the security of an item of immovable property admeasuring 3 acres 9 Sq.metres in Survey No.43/4 of Thrikodithanam Village in the year, 2006. According to the petitioner, the entire loan was paid in the year, 2008. Though the petitioner had requested the second respondent Bank to execute a release deed in favour of the petitioner, no action has been taken by the Bank in this regard, till date. Consequently, the petitioner complains that his property is still remaining mortgaged to the second respondent Bank though the entire amount due to it has already been paid. The petitioner has requested the second respondent on a number of occasions to execute the release deed, but no action has been taken. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 petition before the first respondent seeking action against the second respondent, Bank. According to the petitioner, no action has been taken on Ext.P3 also. Wpc 18273/2010 2 Therefore, the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate directions to the first respondent. 2. Though notice in this writ petition was served on the second respondent through special messenger, the Bank has not chosen to appear before this court or to explain its conduct. The conduct of the second respondent clearly shows negligence or callous disregard. 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader that since Ext.P3 is pending before the first respondent, the matter would be considered and appropriate action would be taken to see that the property of the petitioner is released from the encumbrance without further delay. I am also assured that appropriate action would be taken against the second respondent as enjoined by law, if it is found that the second respondent has been negligent in returning the title deeds of the petitioner and releasing the property from the encumbrance. 4. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner set out in Ext.P3, in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a Wpc 18273/2010 3 period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If it is found that the society has been negligent, appropriate action shall also be initiated against the second respondent. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for prompt compliance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk