HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.A.No.881 of 2011 Dated: 01-11-2011 Between: B.Venkateswara Reddy …Petitioner AND Andhra Bank, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Dr.Pattabhi Bhavan, 5-9-11, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.A.No.881 of 2011 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Appellant-writ petitioner, who is an account holder of Andhra Bank, Kurnool Branch stated to have made a representation to the respondent-Bank on 3.6.2010 pointing out certain irregularities in sanctioning of loan to third respondent herein by mortgaging two sale deeds obtained by it and availing the loan for development of industrial business. According to the appellant, the property, which is subject- matter of two sale deeds is the wakf property and declared as such in the A.P. Gazette notification dated 24.10.1963 Part-II and therefore, the officials of the first respondent-Bank have not property scrutinized the documents and should not have accepted the said property as a security for the loan sanctioned. Complaining that the said representation has not been attended to by the first respondent-Bank, appellant filed the impugned writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-Bank in not disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 3.6.2010 as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the first respondent to conduct a thorough enquiry into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Learned single judge of this Court by impugned order dated 17.10.2011 dismissed the writ petition holding that so long as gross abuse of the power available is not demonstrated, the respondent bank cannot be directed, in every case, to establish its credentials in the matter of sanctioning of loans. Further the petitioner could have made further representation by approaching the next higher officials such as, Chief Manager/Regional Manager/Assistant General Manager of the Bank, who could have, as well, verified the tenability of the claim made by the petitioner and since the petitioner has not followed such a procedure, his bona fides behind the present litigation is suspicious and accordingly dismissed the writ petition by imposing the costs of Rs.1,000/-. Questioning the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. Admittedly, there would be a banking ombudsman appointed to receive such complaints made by depositors/account holders with regard to any irregularities relating to the transactions of the banking business by the officials of the bank. The appellant-writ petitioner can very well approach the banking ombudsman with regard to the irregularities in sanctioning of loan to the third respondent and on making such representation, the said ombudsman can enquire into those allegations and instruct the officials of the bank to take appropriate steps to safeguard the interests of the account holders. In that view of the matter, no infirmity is discernable with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. However, in the circumstances of the case, the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed on the appellant is set aside. The writ appeal is dismissed with the above observation. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _______________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) NOVEMBER 01, 2011 TSR