S VENKATARAMAIAH Vs. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, Sri T. Kumar Babu, Sri Arun Kumar Dudla and Sri Rajendra Bussa, the learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) S. Venkataramaiah, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in withholding the title documents pertaining to the land of Ac.1-50 cents in Sy.No.455/2, Kallur village, Kurnool District, belonging to the 2nd respondent, despite the readiness of the 2nd respondent to discharge the outstanding loan amount in full, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional; and to issue a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to return the title documents pertaining to the land of Ac.1-50 cents in Sy.No.455/2, Kallur village of Kurnool District, in favour of the 2nd respondent against the repayment of the outstanding loan by the 2nd respondent and pass such other suitable orders.

(3.) Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the averments made in the counter- affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and would maintain that when the 2nd respondent is ready and willing to discharge the complete loan amount, the 1st and 3rd respondents have no authority to refuse the re-delivery of documents. The learned counsel also would maintain that the relationship between the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent at the best would be that of the creditor and debtor and when the debtor is ready and willing to discharge the amount in full, the creditor has no right to retain the documents. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) and also certain Rules and Circulars and would maintain that inasmuch as such right is not conferred even by the statute, retention of the documents even when the debtor is ready and willing to discharge the amount in full, would be unlawful.