ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned letter dated 19.04.2013 issued by the first respondent and to consequently direct the first respondent to lift the lien on all the petitioner's loan accounts and release the petitioner's jewels pledged in agricultural gold loan Ac.No.1059842014424.

2.Heard M/s.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel for the first respondent.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner hails from an agricultural family and in order to carry on the the agricultural activities, she had pledged the gold jewelry with the first respondent Bank on 04.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.68,000/- and that on 11.09.2012, she had paid the entire gold loan amount together with interest, totally a sum of Rs.73,060/-. On receipt of payment, the first respondent had released the jewels in the gold loan account dated 04.10.2011.

4.The petitioner has also availed three other gold jewel loans on

10.04.2012, 17.07.2012 and 14.09.2012 respectively. As the gold loan availed on 10.04.2012 had to be redeemed before one year, the petitioner had approached the first respondent Bank and had paid the principal amount along with accrued interest towards the said gold loan. Acknowledging the said payment, the petitioner was also issued with a token, which should be handed over at the time of return of the pledged jewelry. However, the first respondent has refused to release the jewels claiming that the gold loan account dated 04.10.2011 had been mistakenly closed. Therefore, the petitioner was informed by the first respondent that unless the amount due under the gold loan dated 04.10.2011 is paid, the jewels in the gold loan dated 04.10.2011 would not be released. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the police. But however, the Bank claimed that they are holding the jewels as a lien for payment of the amount due under the gold loan dated 04.10.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Banking Ombudsman. The claim of the petitioner before the Banking Ombudsman was also rejected. Hence, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking the above relief.

5.M/s.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the gold loan account dated 04.10.2011 was discharged by the petitioner validly and only after taking into consideration of the said discharge, the jewels were released to the petitioner. But now, the first respondent is making a false claim that he had not discharged the loan. Therefore, the release of jewels was mistake committed by the then Manager. The first respondent was very adamant in asking the petitioner to produce the Challan, under which he had deposited the amount. The said records would be very much available with the first respondent for the reasons best known to him, he was claiming that no such amount has been paid.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the account has been closed and jewels have been released. It has to be presumed that he had discharged the loan in full. The first respondent do not have any authority to withhold the jewels of the second loan even after the payment towards the said second gold loan account. This act of the first respondent, according to her, is illegal, arbitrary and colorable exercise of power and a way to unjustly enrich itself. She would further plead that there can be no lien on a closed loan account.

7.She would further plead that if it had been a mistake committed by the then Manager, they should have initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. She would further plead that as the petitioner had duly discharged her commitment in discharging the loan, which has been acknowledged by the then Manager, the first respondent now cannot claim that the loan had not been discharged. According to her, it is the case of the first respondent that the mistake has been committed by t