IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33050 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.K. SASIDHARAN, DIVYA NIVAS, ONAMTHURUTH.P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN - 686 602. BY ADVS. SRI.KISHOR .B, SRI.A.K.GOPALAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, THYCAUD.P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013. 2. T.T. ANTONY.I A S DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, THYCAUD.P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33050 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Senior Inspector in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Ettumanoor, who retired from service on 28/2/2007. While he was in service, he availed of loan by mortgaging his landed property of 14 cents and the mortgage deed was executed at the Sub Registrar's Office, Ettumanoor. According to the petitioner, much prior to his retirement, he has discharged his liabilities, but however, despite representations made, 1st respondent has not so far executed release deed. It is stated that even a lawyer's notice issued has not evoked any response and it is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed, praying for directing the 1st respondent to execute release deed as per Article 244Fof the Kerala Financial Code with respect to the landed property mentioned above, mortgaging which the petitioner availed of the house building loan. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions from the 1st respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader, the documents mortgaged by the petitioner were WPC No. 33050/10 :2 : returned way back on 16/3/2007 and that a release deed was also signed and forwarded to the Sub Registrar, Ettumanoor with intimation to the petitioner to appear before him and get the documents registered. It is stated that there was no response from the petitioner. According to the respondent, it was only on account of the inaction on the part of the petitioner that, so far it is not registered. It is stated that this was repeated once again after receipt of the lawyer notice which was issued on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, according to the 1st respondent, he is not at fault for the delay in executing the release deed. As at present, there is absolutely no material to find fault with the respondents. If that be so, having regard to the lapse of time that has occurred in the meanwhile, I feel the only course open to the petitioner is to approach the 1st respondent himself and it is offered by the learned Government Pleader that if the petitioner approaches the 1st respondent, necessary steps will be taken for completing execution of the release deed in favour of the petitioner as sought for by him. With that liberty, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp