IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12617 of 2008 Between: 1 V. Dayakar Rao, S/o. late V. Narsimha Rao, R/o. 16-11-511/D/249, Shalivahana Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 2 V. Uma Rani, W/o. V. Dayakar Rao, R/o. 16-11-511/D/249, Shalivahana Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Malakpet Branch, Tirumala Towers, Malakpet, Hyderabad. 2 The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, 10-1-1199/2, PTI Building, IInd Floor, AC Guards, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action on the part of the respondent bank herein in not returning the documents deposited by the Petitioners herein document bearing No. 4147 of 2003 and 4148 of 2003 dated 11-12-2003 respectively bearing House No. 16-11- 511/D/249 situated at Shalivahana Nagar, Dilsukhanagar and all other relevant documents executed at the time of creation of mortgage is high handed and illegal, violation of the statutory provisions, further direct the respondent bank to a pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as damages towards the commercial losses sustained by the petitioner and both the physical and mental agony and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.CH.VEDAVANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.SURYA PRAKASA RAO The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12617 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are two in numbers assailing the action of the respondent bank in not returning the documents, despite the loan being cleared by them. 2. Notice before admission has been ordered on 18-6-2008. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, reports that the 1st respondent after getting clearance from the head office will return the documents to the petitioner. A further submission has been made that returning of the documents are delayed suspecting them as spurious and fabricated. . 5. Indisputably no crime has been registered against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners deposited spurious documents. Since the liability has been liquidated by the petitioners, they are entitled to get back their documents. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to return the documents deposited by them within two weeks from today. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 12th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12617 OF 2008 12th August, 2008.