IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13778 of 2009 Between: Vankayala Sunitha W/o.VNV Satya Krishna, Hindu Sri Pabolu Rama Subrahmanyam Pedda Veedhi Ambajipeta E.G District .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Branch Manager City Union Bank Bhimavaram, W.G District 2 The General Maanger, City Union of Bank Regd Office No 149 TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam 612001 Tamil Nadu 3 Vankayala Naga Venkata Satya Krishna S/o Rama Surya Prasad,Hindu, Sunkara Paddayyagari St Bhimavaram, Bhimavaram JCJ, W.G District 4 The Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank of India 6-1-56 Secretariat Road Saifabad,Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare the action of the 1st respodent in treating the petition as the Co-obligant of the petitioner husband who is the 3rd respondent for the O.L.C.C loan given upon the 3rd respodent business M/s Sai Satya Krishna Enterprises with a limit of Rs 7,50,000/- dt 23- 10-2007 by way of the legal Notice dt 18-3-2009 as illegal,void arbitrary unjust and against to the principles of Natural justice by issuing an appropriate Writ,order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respodnent to delete my name as the Co- obligant to my husband 3rd respodent upon the OLCC Loan of Rs 7,50,000/- granted by the 1st respondent and grant such other relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : None Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : MR.M.P.UGLE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13778 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent-Branch Manager, City Union Bank, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District in treating the petitioner as the Co-obligant of her husband for the O.L.C.C loan given to him, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The petitioner who claims to be the wife of the third respondent herein, alleges that the 3rd respondent in collusion with the 1st respondent herein, obtained the petitioner’s signatures towards a fake loan, showing her as the guarantor of the loan. As could be seen from the material available on record, various other allegations have been made against the third respondent herein. On the face of it, the matter does not involve enforcement of any legal right or statutory obligation. Moreover, the matter involves various disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone in to by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, if aggrieved, the petitioner has to work out appropriate common law remedy as available under law for redressal of her grievance. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI, J 13th July, 2009 RAR THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13778 of 2009 DATED : 13-07-2009