IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 25884 of 2007 Between: M/s.Ganesh Industries, Rep.by its prop Dandamraju Dhananjaya Rao, S/o.Late Sri Narasimha Rao, Hindu, R/o.Ganapavaram(V), Nadendla(M),Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Kothapeta Branch, Guntur. 2 The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Visakhapatnam. 3 Katragada Mastan Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, R/o.Nadendla, Nadendla(M), Guntur Dist. 4 Kata Adinarayana, Prop. of Sri Aditya Enterprises, S/o.Ramulu, Hindu, R/o.Ganapavaram(V), Nadendla(M),Guntur Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 pass any writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1and 2 is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious and to pass such order or other orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KRISHNA MOHAN SIKHARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.SURYA PRAKASA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction against the respondents 1 and 2 that they should not release the documents of mortgaged properties to the 4th respondent, who is actually the borrower from the 1st respondent bank. 2. The facts in brief are : Even as per the affidavit of the petitioner, the 1st respondent advanced certain amounts to 4th respondent. The 1st respondent bank filed O.A. No.162 of 2003 before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, against 3rd and 4th respondents. Later, the said dispute was settled by 4th respondent in pursuance of the One Time Settlement (OTS) for Rs.19,25,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs twenty five thousand only). The 4th respondent is said to have paid amounts to 1st respondent and he is seeking return of his mortgaged security. The petitioner claims that he has advanced amounts to the 4th respondent and if the document in question is released, the petitioner will not be in a position to recover his dues from the 4th respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 1st respondent and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. It is evident from the facts stated above, that process of this court is being used to recover the dues of the petitioner said to subsisting against the 4th respondent. The said course of action and the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is clearly impermissible. It transpires from record that the petitioner has already instituted proceedings before the Civil Court and has obtained appropriate orders of attachment of the properties of the 4th respondent. If that be so, there is additional reason, why this court ought not to entertain this writ petition. 4. This writ petition is clearly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ VILAS.V.AFZUL PURKAR, J June 22, 2009. DS