IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20445 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NOUSHAD.A., S/O.ALI AHMED, KUNNIL VEEDU, ALAMCODE P.O. THOTTIKKALLU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, SALES TAX OFFICE, ATTINGAL P.O 2. K.L.FINANCIERS, MARKET ROAD, ALAMCODE P.O. NEAR ATTINGAL REP. BY BHASKARA PILLAI, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, POOJA BHAVAN, ALAMCODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R2 SRI.P.RETNAKARAN FOR R2 GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ....................... W.P.(C).20445/2009 ....................... Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to conduct an enquiry to the money lending business being conducted by the second respondent. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the first respondent to redeem the gold ornaments pledged by him. In alternative he seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 and pass orders thereon. 2. In Ext.P1, the petitioner has alleged that 12 gold ornaments were pledged by him to avail the sum of Rs.21,506/- as loan, that an amount of Rs.17,134/- was remitted and that without notice to him the gold ornaments were sold. The petitioner has alleged that for the past more than five years, notwithstanding repeated requests, the value of the gold ornaments had not been paid over to him. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the original of the loan register, Ext.R2(a), was produced before this Court. I have gone through the same. On going through the register, I find that the gold ornaments pledged by the W.P.(C).20445/09 2 petitioner for availing the gold loan from the second respondent have been returned to him. The last column in each page as against the entries relating to the gold loans availed by the petitioner bears the petitioner's signature in token of having received back the gold ornaments. The signature of the petitioner in the register tallies with his signature in Ext.P1 and in this writ petition. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the claim made by the petitioner that the gold ornaments pledged by him were sold in public auction even though he had cleared the gold loans. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs