Once the loan dues are cleared, banks are expected to release the original documents without any condition.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication passed by the 2nd respondent Bank dated 28.09.2017, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent Bank to return the title deeds of the petitioner.)

1. The communication issued by the 2nd respondent / IDBI Bank dated 28.09.2017 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

2. The impugned communication reveals that the dispute regarding the waiver of foreclosure charges were pending before the High Court in a writ proceeding during the relevant point of time and therefore, the 2nd respondent / IDBI Bank expressed his inability to consider the request of the petitioner to return the original documents deposited by the petitioner, while borrowing the loan.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the conduct of the respondent/Bank in not returning his original documents, despite the consent given by the petitioner to recover the foreclosure charges is arbitrary.

4. That apart, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/Bank that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, all the original documents were already returned back to the petitioner and thus, the writ petition became infructuous.

5. May that as it be. Admittedly, the documents were returned back to the petitioner, which was acknowledged by the petitioner. That being the case, no further adjudication needs to be undertaken in respect of the grounds raised in the present writ petition.

6. The pertinent question raised by the petitioner is that the entire loan dues were cleared by the taken over Bank. While so, the respondent / IDBI Bank has no authority to keep the original documents with them merely on the ground that writ proceedings were pending before the High Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the conduct of the respondents/Bank in this regard is not only arbitrary, it would affect the very genuinity of the Banking transactions. Regarding the misconduct or otherwise on the part of the Bank, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority or Forum for the purpose of redressing his grievances or to ensure that the Banks Act in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes and Rules and within their limits.

8. It is needless to state that once, the loan dues are cleared by the borrower, the Banks are not expected to keep the original documents with them and it is to be released without any condition.

9. However, in the present case, the order impugned says that the writ petition was subjudiced and therefore, they will not release the documents. Having received the entire loan amount, the stand taken in this regard seems to be improper.

10. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.