Allowed

M. Seshagiri Rao, v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Telangana HC23 Sept 2010WP/14552/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by members of a cooperative building society seeking an order directing the government housing department to release their pledged title deeds. Theociety had received loan payments from members but failed to remit the funds to the department, alleging diversification of funds. The court held that since members cleared dues at the society level, they are entitled to document r

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release pledged documents to petitioners forthwith and not insist on payment of any further amounts.

M. Seshagiri Rao, Vs The Principal Secretary to… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14552 of 2005

¶2

Dated:23.09.2010

¶3

Between:

¶4

M.Seshagiri Rao .. Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14552 of 2005

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to release the documents to the petitioners without waiting for the action initiated against the Tenali Viswanadha Cooperative Building Society Limited, Tenali (for short, the Society) or its Officials.

¶10

It appears, the petitioners are the members of the Society. It is their case that they applied to the 2^nd respondent through the Society for sanction of loans by mortgaging their house plots along with original documents, and after due process, loans were sanctioned way back in the years 1990, 1991 and 1994. As per the directions of the 2^nd respondent, the instalment amounts were paid in the account of the Society, which is with the District Co-operative Central Bank, Tenali, for which, the Society had issued receipts. The Society had to remit the said instalment amounts to the account of the 2^nd respondent, who had to verify whether the amounts are regularly received from the members and remitted to its account. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioners that they have repaid the entire loan amounts and thereafter they requested to release their documents, pledged with the 2^nd respondent, in connection with the loan transactions, but the 2^nd respondent did not release them, on the ground that the Society had misappropriated certain amounts and, therefore, necessary action is contemplated against the Society and its Managing Committee members. Hence, the instant writ petition is filed seeking the relief as stated above.

¶11

The 2^nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the Society for assigning their title deeds in its favour and also to abide by the terms and conditions stipulated in the Assignment Deeds. The Society executed registered Assignment Deeds for each of the petitioners in favour of

¶12

the

¶13

2^nd respondent. It is further stated that the petitioners did not repay the entire loan amounts along with interest to the Andhra Pradesh House Federation and, therefore, their documents could not be released.

¶14

The 5^th respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that though the petitioners cleared their loan amounts at Society level, the loan outstanding amounts to be paid by the Society to the Andhra Pradesh House Federation on the members loan accounts were not cleared at House Federation level due to diversification of the funds of the Society. As such, the documents of the petitioners could not be released by the Andhra Pradesh House Federation, Hyderabad.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Co-operation.

¶16

From the counter affidavit of the 5^th respondent and as well as the material on record, it is clear that the petitioners have cleared the loan amounts at the Society level. When the petitioners have duly paid the instalment amounts with the Society, it is for the Society to remit those amounts with the 2^nd respondent. Merely because, the Society did not remit the same with the 2^nd respondent, and there is diversification of funds by the Society, the petitioners cannot be blamed for non-payment of loan amounts. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for release of the documents. The respondents are, therefore, directed to release the documents to the petitioners, forthwith, if not, already released in pursuance of the interim order of this Court, dated 23.08.2006. The respondents are further directed not to insist the petitioners for payment of any further amounts.

¶17

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no

¶18

order as to costs.

¶19

______________ C.V.RAMULU, J

¶20

23.09.2010 KH

M. Seshagiri Rao, v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Seshagiri Rao, v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muppaneni Vikram Aditya Vs Osmania University, represented by its Registrar

Mahatma Gandhi Bamboo, Basket workers Industrial Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

T.v.Govinda Rao Vs The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad at Basheerbagh

Smt. Gajula Madhavi Durga Bhavani, Vs District Collector

Sri Mannem Lakshminatha Reddy, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

B. Chandramouli Vs District Collector