IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20954 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.KUNHIRAMAN, LINEMAN, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ELECTRICAL WING SECTION NO.II, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KOZHIKODE – 673 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20954 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.3.2009 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.20954 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a Lineman under the respondent. According to the respondent while he was in service, he had availed a housing loan, mortgaging his properties. It is stated that prior to his superannuation on 31.3.2009, the entire liability was discharged and he made an application for returning the documents of title deposited by him. 2. It is his case that by Ext.P1 letter dtd.23.3.2009, the 1st respondent forwarded the request to the 2nd respondent for appropriate orders and that so far, the 2nd respondent has not passed orders on Ext.P1, as a result of which the documents are still not released. It is complaining of the above the writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to return the documents concerning the property mortgaged by the petitioner as recommended by the 1st respondent in Ext.P1. W.P(C) No.20954 of 2011 2 3. Though the case was adjourned on one occasion for enabling the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter she was not successful. However in the nature of allegation raised by the petitioner, I see no reason to keep the writ petition pending any longer. 4. If as stated by the petitioner the entire liability due from him has already been discharged and the 1st respondent has recommended for returning the documents, prima facie, there is no reason why the documents were not returned to the petitioner. 5. In such circumstances, I direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall take a decision in the matter. 6. The petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent, who shall take a decision in the matter at any rate within four weeks thereafter. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ab