P.Kishan v. The Manager, State Bank Of Hyderabad, Mallepally

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Between:

P. Kishan .. Petitioner and The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Mallepally Branch, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:21.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for APSRTC appearing for the 2nd respondent. With the consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is heard at the admission stage. The present writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the representation dated 16.08.2007 made by the petitioner and also the facts stated in the legal notice dated 19.04.2012, by taking prompt action against the 3rd respondent before his retirement from service, as illegal and arbitrary. The averments in the writ petition are as under: The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were working as Security Guard and Driver respectively in APSRTC, Mehdipatnam Depot.

It is stated that the 3rd respondent requested the petitioner to stand as guarantor for a personal loan to be taken by him, for which the petitioner agreed. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent applied for the personal loan and the 1st respondent granted a personal loan of Rs.90,000/- repayable with interest at 13.5% p.a. within 48 monthly installments commencing from December, 2003 onwards. The 3rd respondent agreed to the terms of sanction.

the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent also did not inform the petitioner that he received the personal loan. Later on, the 1st respondent is alleged to have issued a notice to the petitioner which was received by him on 29.06.2007. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner met the 3rd respondent who assured the petitioner of solving the problem. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent applied for voluntary retirement and retired from service.

Then the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 16.08.2007 demanding him to take action. As there was no response, the petitioner is said to have got issued a legal notice dated 19.04.2012 through his advocate to the respondents 1 and 2 seeking to take action for recovery of the loan amount from the 3rd respondent's retirement benefits or to stop the payment of retirement benefits before his retirement.

Questioning the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in considering his representation dated 16.08.2007, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The 2nd respondent filed his counter stating that the 3rd respondent, who worked as Driver in Mehdipatnam Depot for the period from 05.06.1980 to 14.09.1995, was removed from service on the ground of his unauthorized absence from duty vide proceedings No.01/1(5)/2006-HYD, dated 08.12.2006, issued by the Depot Manager, Hayathnagar-I. It is stated that the legal notice dated 19.04.2012 said to have been issued by the petitioner was received and the PF and SBT settlement cheques relating to the 3rd respondent were received and kept pending with the Office of the Deputy General Manager for want

of a directive.

It is to be noted that the dispute with regard to repayment of loan taken by the 3rd respondent from the 1st respondent cannot be gone into in this writ petition, as it is purely a private dispute between two individuals which can be decided only by an appropriate civil Court. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount in respect of the loan taken by the 3rd respondent, cannot be gone into in these proceedings. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action taken by the respondents for recovery of the amount, he is always at liberty to contest the same by placing the material available with him or by showing as to how he is not liable to pay the amount. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents are taking coercive or illegal steps for recovery of the money.

Hence, I see no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 21st July, 2015 cbs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

21st July, 2015 cbs