IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 2628 of 2006(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AUGUSTINE DEVASSY, CHAKKIYATH HOUSE, PUTHENPALLY, VARAPPUZHA.P.O, PIN-683 517. BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, CHENNAI. 2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER(P), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PERSONAL BRANCH, CHENNAI. 4. CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER,INDIAN RAILWAY, RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SR.STANDING COUNSEL,RAILWAYS -R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.2628 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the Southern Railway, as Traffic Inspector. While he was in service, he had applied for a housing loan and it was sanctioned as Ext.P1 order dated 24.10.89. The terms of the loan have been set forth in the annexure appended thereto. Admittedly, the petitioner had repaid the entire amounts covered by the said loan prior to his voluntary retirement on 30.09.03. After discharging the entire liability arising out of the said loan transaction, the petitioner had requested the authorities for the release of the title deeds in relation to the mortgaged property. Despite repeated requests, no action was taken by the respondents for that behalf and it was in the said circumstances that the petitioner approached this court by filing the above writ petition mainly with the prayer to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to return the title deeds pertaining to the mortgaged property. 2. After the receipt of notice in this writ petition, Ext.R1 notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was amended to assail the said demand notice as well. Ext.R1 reads thus:- W.P.(C) NO.2628 of 2006 2 “The Loanee insures the house with the Life Insurance Corporation of India at his cost immediately after the completion of the construction for a sum, not less than the amount of the advance against loss or change by fire. The Policy of the Insurance should be deposited in this office and the employee shall also pay regularly the premium in respect of the said insurance and will when required produce the mortgagee the premium receipt for inspection”. As is evident from Ext.R1, the same was issued only after 16.3.06 where as the petitioner had retired from service voluntarily on 30.09.03. There is absolutely no case for the respondents that while the petitioner was in service he was issued with any such kind of notice raising any such demand. A bare perusal of the statement filed on behalf of the respondents in June 2006 would reveal the real intention behind the insistence for insuring a building built by availing a loan from the respondent. The relevant paragraph reads thus:- “It is submitted that one of the conditions for having availed the House Building Advance from Railways is that the Mortgagor shall immediately insure the house at his own cost with the Life Insurance Corporation of India for a sum not less than the amount of the advance and shall keep it so insured against loss or damage by fire, flood and lightning as provided in the said rules, till the advance is fully repaid to the Mortgagee and deposit the policy of insurance with the Mortgagee......” (emphasis supplied) W.P.(C) NO.2628 of 2006 3 3. A scanning of Annexure R1 in the light of the statement made in para 4 would reveal that the insistence to insure the constructions was made only to safeguard the interest of the railways till the repayment of the amount availed by way of loan by the mortgagee. Admittedly, in this case, prior to his retirement, he had repaid the entire amount due under the loan transaction in question and no amount was outstanding as on the date of his voluntary retirement. In view of the specific statement as extracted above, I find no justification in the action on the part of the respondents in demanding Rs.12,250/- towards penal rent on house building advance vide Ext.R1. This has been issued belatedly years after the retirement of the petitioner, that too, after the receipt of notice from this Court. It is also evident that the employer was not put in jeopardy on account of the action of the petitioner in not insuring the construction made by availing the loan in question. It could have been a subject matter for disciplinary action while he was in service. However, at this distance of time and in view of the non-occurance of any monitary loss on account of such inaction on the part of the petitioner no action can be brought against him. The respondents are, therefore, bound to return the title deeds deposited by him while availing the housing loan sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order dated 24.1.1989. 4. In the circumstances, the respondents shall release the title W.P.(C) NO.2628 of 2006 4 deeds deposited by the petitioner at the time of availing the loan in question, to the petitioner expeditiously at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE spc