IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16373 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ SAYED MOHAMMED RAWTHER, MULACKAL HOUSE, SOUTH PETAH, MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.MIJI JOHN SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.V.I.P.DIVISION NO.III, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK - R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16373 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2008 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A.NO.340 OF 2008. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 24.04.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN D.r.C.Np.2219/SIB/EKM. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE TRY NO.476761 DATED 18.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 16373 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has availed of certain loans from the 1st respondent-bank, In respect of the payments to be made by the respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner as a 'A' Class Contractor of Public Works Department, the petitioner had executed a power of attorney in favour of the 1st respondent to receive the amounts, and credited the same in the petitioner's loan account. The loan account of the petitioner with the 1st respondent-bank has been finally closed. In spite of the same, the respondents 2 and 3 have issued a cheque for amounts payable to the petitioner to be encashed through the bank, apparently, on the strength of the power of attorney earlier issued by the petitioner to the bank. When the petitioner presented the cheque before the bank, the bank refused to honour the same on the ground that since the loan transaction has been finally closed, they can no longer be the power of attorney holder of the petitioner to encash the cheque. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: W.P.(C).No. 16373 OF 2008 2 i) To call for the records relating to Exts. P1 to P4 and to issue any order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to issue cheques to the petitioner for the amount covered by Ext. P3 without making any endorsement enabling the 1st respondent (Bank) for collecting the amount on behalf of the petitioner by issuing a fresh cheque or recalling the previous one and cancelling the endorsement. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent (Bank) to accept the cheque of the petitioner and to disburse the amount after collecting amount after collecting the same from the 3rd respondent. 2. I have heard the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent also agrees before me that they have no further lien in respect of the amounts payable by respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner. That being so, nothing stands in the way of respondents 2 and 3 issuing a cheque directly to the petitioner in respect of the amounts payable to him. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to issue a fresh cheque in the name of the petitioner for his amounts covered by Ext.P3, after cancelling Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-