IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33590 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. EK.RAMAKRISHNAN,EDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE ASTHAMICHIRA P.O.,THRISSUR-680731 2. SHIVAKUAMR E.R., EDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,ASTHAMICHIRA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680731 3. KRISHNAKUMAR E.R.,EDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE ASHTAMICHIRA P.O.,THRISSUR-680731. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASHTAMICHIRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.325,P.O.ASHTAMICHIRA, THRISSUR-680731,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,OFFICE OF THE THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE THRISSUR.PIN-680001 BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI K.C.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33590 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners 2 and 3 had availed a loan from the first respondent in the year 1997 and 1999 respectively. Chronic default in the matter of repayment towards the said loan account made the first respondent to resort to arbitration proceedings. In the meanwhile the petitioners have availed the benefit of one time settlement as offered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and according to the petitioners they have settled the entire liability towards the first respondent as is obvious from Exts.P3 and P4 receipts. The grievance of the petitioner is that though they had already discharged the entire liability arising out of the said loan transaction, the first respondent is not taking any step to return the title deeds which are deposited for the purpose of availing the aforesaid loans. In the said circumstances, raising grievances against the refusal on the part of the first respondent to return the title deeds, the petitioners have approached the second respondent through Ext.P5 representation dated 18.3.2009. It WPC.No.33590/2010 : 2 : is on being aggrieved by the inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have already approached the second respondent through Ext.P5 representation. In the said representation they have specifically stated that they had already discharged the entire liability due to the first respondent by availing the one time settlement facility. It is redressing the grievance on account of the inaction on the part of the first respondent to return the title deeds deposited with the bank while availing the loan that Ext.P5 representation has been preferred before the second respondent. In the said circumstances the second respondent should have considered the same and should have taken appropriate steps to redress the grievance of the petitioner, in accordance with law. At any rate, there is no justification for disusing the powers vested with the second respondent. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider WPC.No.33590/2010 : 3 : Ext.P5 and take appropriate steps as requested by the petitioner in Ext.P5, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge