IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.15150 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI BAMDEV NAYAK, S/O BAHADUR NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, FLAT 129, BLOCK G, NEELADRI MAHAL APARTMENTS, NO.45/9, NANDIDURGA ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 046.
(BY MR.SRIKANTH.A, ADV.) AND:
THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA, HAVING OFFICE 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING, LHO CAMPUS, NO.65, ST.MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY MR.M.K.SHIVARAM, ADV.) …PETITIONER … RESPONDENT - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF MANDAMOUS AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT: 23.03.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-B IN RELEASING THE TITLE DOCUMENTS OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND HANDOVER THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Srikanth A., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.M.K.Shivaram, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to consider the application filed by the petitioner dated 23.03.2018 as per Annexure-B in releasing the title documents of schedule property and handover the same to the petitioner who is the owner of the schedule property.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondent – Bank to consider and decide the representation dated 23.03.2018 submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the same on the ground that the prayer has been made by the petitioner to collect the movables and therefore, a Court Commissioner has to be appointed to ascertain about the location of the movables.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is totally absurd the scope of the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to entertain the same.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the nature of relief as prayed for by the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.
Sd/- JUDGE RV