IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16373 of 2008(Y)
1. SAYED MOHAMMED RAWTHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BRANCH MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/07/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
==============
W.P.(C).No. 16373 OF 2008
====================
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has availed of certain loans from the 1st
respondent-bank, In respect of the payments to be made by the
respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner as a ‘A’ Class Contractor of
Public Works Department, the petitioner had executed a power of
attorney in favour of the 1st respondent to receive the amounts, and
credited the same in the petitioner’s loan account. The loan
account of the petitioner with the 1st respondent-bank has been
finally closed. In spite of the same, the respondents 2 and 3 have
issued a cheque for amounts payable to the petitioner to be
encashed through the bank, apparently, on the strength of the
power of attorney earlier issued by the petitioner to the bank.
When the petitioner presented the cheque before the bank, the
bank refused to honour the same on the ground that since the loan
transaction has been finally closed, they can no longer be the power
of attorney holder of the petitioner to encash the cheque. In the
above circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking
the following reliefs:
W.P.(C).No. 16373 OF 2008 2
i) To call for the records relating to Exts. P1 to P4 and
to issue any order or direction commanding the 3rd
respondent to issue cheques to the petitioner for the
amount covered by Ext. P3 without making any
endorsement enabling the 1st respondent (Bank) for
collecting the amount on behalf of the petitioner by issuing
a fresh cheque or recalling the previous one and cancelling
the endorsement.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st
respondent (Bank) to accept the cheque of the petitioner
and to disburse the amount after collecting amount after
collecting the same from the 3rd respondent.
2. I have heard the parties.
3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent also agrees
before me that they have no further lien in respect of the amounts
payable by respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner. That being so,
nothing stands in the way of respondents 2 and 3 issuing a cheque
directly to the petitioner in respect of the amounts payable to him.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents 2 and
3 to issue a fresh cheque in the name of the petitioner for his
amounts covered by Ext.P3, after cancelling Ext.P3, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
bkn/-