Telangana High Court
Ksr Infrastructure Projects vs The Union Of India on 3 June, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No.25003 OF 2023
Between:
KSR Infrastructure Projects
... Petitioner
And
The Union of India & others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03.06.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_____________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No.25003 OF 2023
% 03.06.2024
Between:
# KSR Infrastructure Projects
... Petitioner
And
$ The Union of India & others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.B.Aruna
^ Counsel for Respondents :Smt.Kavita Yadav for R1 and
R2
Mr. Srinivas Chitturu for R3
to R7.
? Cases Referred:
(1) (2021) 6 SCC 771
(2) (2021) SCC Online SC page 801
3
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.25003 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Ms. B.Aruna, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner appearing on behalf of Petitioner,
Smt. Kavitha Yadav, learned Central Government
Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and
2 and Mr. Srinivas Chitturu, learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 7.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking
prayer as under:
"........to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the
action of the Respondent No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of not releasing
excess securities over and above the sanctioned
requirement of security coverage as causing impediment to
the Petitioner in exercising their lawful right to conduct
business under Article 19(1)(g) and in creating impediment
in exercising their lawful right to alienate their property
under Article 300A as bad arbitrary illegal and in violation
of Article 19(1)(g) and 300 A of Constitution of India and
consequently direct the Respondent Bank to accept the
Petitioner's proposal for release of excess securities dt.
24.07.2023, and pass such further order or orders..."
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
3. PERUSED THE RECORD
a) This Court vide its order dated 13.09.2023
passed in W.P.No.25003 of 2023 observed as under :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner approached this Court
seeking prayer as under:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the action of respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 of not
releasing excess securities over and above the sanctioned
requirement of security coverage as causing impediment to
the petitioner in exercising their lawful right to conduct
business under Article 19(1)(g) and in creating impediment
in exercising their lawful right to alienate their property
under Article 300-A as bad, arbitrary, illegal and in
violation of Article 19(1)(g) and 300-A of Constitution of
India and consequently, direct the respondent Bank to
accept the Petitioner's proposal for release of excess
securities dated 24.07.2023.".
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the
petitioner vide her detailed representation dated
04.08.2023 addressed to the Branch Manager Baroda,
Warangal requested for return of properties by Fifteenth of
August so as to meet petitioner's monetary needs by
selling the property as requested by the petitioner in
petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2023. The request
of the petitioner vide representation dated 24.07.2023
pertained to return of properties excess over the
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
sanctioned security coverage ratio. Petitioner vide the said
representation gave certain property details and requested
to return the said properties excess over the value of
Rs.654.00 lakhs. The respondent is directed to consider
petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2023 and
24.07.2023 within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order, and pass appropriate
orders duly communicating the decision to the petitioner.
List on 03.10.2023.
b) The proceeding BOB/WARANG/ADV/2023-2024,
dated 11.10.2023 addressed to the Petitioner by
Senior Branch Manager, Warangal Branch, in
pursuance to the interim orders of this Court dt.
13.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.25003/2023 reads as
under :
Your representation dt. 24.07.2023 and 04.08.2023 for release
of the securities has been considered by the sanctioning
authority in the background of order of Hon'ble High Court of
Telangana in W.P.No.25003/2023.
The sanctioning authority has taken a decision based on
Bank's policies and commercial aspect of the account and
decided that the securities cannot be released as requested in
your representation.
4. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments
made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition, in
brief, are as follows:
a) The father of the petitioner, Mr K Sanjeeva Reddy started
a sole proprietorship firm named KSR infrastructure projects in
Hanamkonda, and opened an account with the 4th respondent
bank in the year 1993. The petitioner's account limit was 40
lakhs rupees for overdraft and Rs.1.8 Crore for bank guarantee,
and in return the petitioner provided the required security
coverage of Rs.2.22 crore and thus the petitioners account had a
security draft ratio of 1:1:21. Thereafter petitioner firm was
converted from sole proprietor into a partnership firm in 2012.
b) The petitioner firm sent a proposal for enhancement of
bank guarantee to Rs. 3.5 Crore and overdraft limit to Rs.1.5
Crore and term loan of Rs. 1.5 Crore and also requested the 4th
respondent to temporarily return two (2) properties owned by
relatives, who had guaranteed his properties, for the transfer of
title, as the founder of the firm had purchased the same from the
said relative, and also requested the bank to permanently
return/release the two other properties belonging to the sister of
the managing partner Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy, as value of the
other properties was adequately covering the security ratio.
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
c) The Respondent Bank approved the Petitioner's proposal
for enhancement but had rejected the request for term loan,
consequently, the security required as per the previous ratio of
1:1.21 would be Rs. 5.2 crores whereas the Respondent Bank
retained security of Rs. 6.66 crores thereby increasing the
security coverage ratio to 1:1.54.
d) The respondent bank had induced the petitioner's
managing Partner to execute registered Mortgage Deed bearing
Document No. 2634/14 dated 19.05.2014 for existing securities
and all properties save for the permanently released two
properties (owned by Smt. V. Vasantha) and the two properties
permitted for temporary release for changing the title (owned by
Mr. G. Anantha Reddy), were mortgaged.
e) Due to delay in transfer of the title of the temporarily
released properties, the petitioner had to mortgage one of the
properties which were earlier permitted for permanent release.
The 4th respondent made the petitioner execute two registered
documents whereby new properties were added.
f) Thereafter, during Covid, the 4th respondent induced
the petitioner to enter into a deed for "Extension of mortgage by
deposit of title deeds" for availing the benefit of Covid-19 BCECL
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
Scheme, whereby all the existing mortgages where extended for
the amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- advanced. The 4th respondent
issued an annual report after revaluation of the securities which
amounted to Rs.6,65,93,000/- and the security coverage ratio
was 1:1:54.
g) Thereafter, the petitioner sought for release of all excess
securities from the 4th respondent but to no avail. The petitioner
was then constrained to escalate the matter to the 6th
respondent and got the valuation report of the four properties
which totalled to Rs. 10,92,07,000/. Thereafter, the petitioner
gave multiple representations to the fourth respondent to release
all the excess properties after valuation was done.
h) Due to repeated inaction, the petitioner placed the matter
before the 6th respondent and also sent copies of the petitioner's
representation dated 13.03.2023 to the 4th and 5th respondents.
The 4th respondent replied to the petitioner stating that the
review for release of properties is in process. In contrary, the 6th
respondent also replied in the same lines stating that the review
for release of properties is in process and after the receipt of the
documents, RO will consider the proposal.
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
i) Subsequently, the petitioner gave other representations
dated 24.07.2023 and 04.08.2023 to the 4th respondent to
release seven (07) properties valued at Rs. 09,39,93,550/-. As
per the latest valuation report and offer to keep the remaining
three properties which were valued at Rs. 6,83,20,000/-.
Aggrieved by the inaction of the 4th respondent in not releasing
the excess securities, the present writ petition is filed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5. It is brought to the notice of the Court that in
pursuance to the interim orders of this Court, dated
13.09.2023, the request of the Petitioner for
consideration of Petitioner's representation, dated
24.07.2023 and 04.08.2023 for release of securities
had been considered by the sanctioning authority and
the sanctioning authority had taken a decision based
on Bank's policies and commercial aspect of the
account and decided that the securities cannot be
released as requested in Petitioner's representations.
6. A bare perusal of the letter dated 11.10.2023
(referred to and extracted above) issued to the
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
petitioner in pursuance to the interim orders of this
Court dated 13.09.2023 does not indicate any single
reason for negativing Petitioner's request except
stating that the securities cannot be released as
requested in Petitioner's representation based on
banks policies and commercial aspect of the account.
7. This Court opines that the Respondent Nos.4 to 7
being functionaries of the State are duty bound to act
promptly since the request of the Petitioner pertains
to release of excess securities/properties which are
above the required sanctioned security coverage
ratio. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the
Petitioner is in the dire need of the excess properties
mortgaged with the bank and in view of the genuine
request of the Petitioner for smooth conduct of
Petitioner's affairs/business, the Respondent No.4
has to consider Petitioner's request for release of
excess properties as requested in Petitioner's letter
dated 24.07.2023 in accordance to law.
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
8. This Court taking into consideration the specific
averments made by the Petitioner in the affidavit
filed in support of the present writ petition opines
that the Petitioner cannot be driven again to litigation
and put to hardship to challenge the letter dated
11.10.2023 issued by the Senior Branch Manager,
Warangal Branch, for the purpose of obtaining the
relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.
9. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in a judgment
dated 20.04.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s.
Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade
Marks (reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1) and further the said
view had been reiterated by a Full Bench of the Apex
Court (3 Judges) in a judgment reported in (2021) SCC
Online SC page 801 in Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited
Vs. State of Bihar and Others dated 24.09.2021 and in the
said judgment it is observed that the principle of law that
emerges is that the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other
purpose as well.
10. Taking into consideration the above said facts
and circumstances of the case and the contents of the
letter dated 11.10.2023 issued by the Senior Branch
Manager, Warangal Branch, vide BOB/WARANG/
ADV/2023-2024, which admittedly as borne on
record is bereft of reasons, and the view of the Apex
Court in the Judgments referred to above, the Writ
Petition is disposed of directing Respondent Nos.4, 5,
6 and 7, to reconsider Petitioner's proposal for
release of excess securities as requested by the
Petitioner vide letter dated 24.07.2023 within a
period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of
the copy of the order in accordance to law in
conformity with principles of natural justice and pass
appropriate reasoned order and duly communicate
the decision to the Petitioner. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
WP_25003_2023
SN,J
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition,
shall stand closed.
___________________
SUREPALLI NANDA,J
Date: 03.06.2024
Note : L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o.yvkr/ktm
