## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944
```
## **`WP(C) NO. 1204 OF 2012`**
## **`PETITIONER:`**
```
S.SUBRAMANIAN
AGED 69 YEARS
RETIRED FOREST GUARD, THAMANGALATH HOUSE,
KOTTAPPURAM HOUSE, ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR-680584.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SRI.T.G.SUNIL PRANAVAM
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
```
1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
FOREST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
DISTRICT FOREST OFFICE, THRISSUR.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
```
## **`OTHER PRESENT:`**
```
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
```
```
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
**W.P.(C).No.1204/2012**
**2**
## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------W.P.(C).No.1204 of 2012**
**---------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of March, 2022**
## **JUDGMENT**
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
- i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to release Original Sale deed No. 593/97 dated 26.3.97 of S.R.O. Erumapetty, submitted by the petitioner for safe custody at the time when he availed the house building advance forthwith.
ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith release the original of the Life Insurance Policy of the petitioner bearing No. 772012518 which the petitioner submitted before the respondents at the time of availing the House building advance.
iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to initiate appropriate action against respondents 2 and 3 for not releasing the documents to the petitioner.
iv. Declare that the action of the respondents in not
**W.P.(C).No.1204/2012**
**3**
releasing the Original Sale deed No. 593/97 dated 26.3.97 of S.R.O. Erumapetty relating to the petitioner's property and the Original of Life Insurance Policy of the petitioner bearing No. 772012518 even after repayment of the entire house building advance availed by the petitioner is unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
v. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including costs.
## (SIC)
## 2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 27.02.2012, this Court passed the following order:
“The petitioner, while in service as a Forest Guard, obtained a house building advance. As security for due repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner deposited with the respondents title deed, viz., sale deed No.593/97 of Erumapetty Sub Registrar's office, and the original Life Insurance Policy of the petitioner bearing No.772012518. The petitioner paid off the entire house building advance. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the security documents have not been returned to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the documents are missing and could not be traced. The learned Government Pleader further submits that appropriate action has been taken to obtain a certified copy of the sale deed
**4**
## **W.P.(C).No.1204/2012**
and they have informed the Life Insurance Corporation appropriately in respect of the missing of the Life Insurance policy. I am not satisfied that nothing further requires to be done in the matter. When the original documents are entrusted with the respondents, the respondents have a duty to keep the same safely under lock and key. If the documents are missing, the person responsible for custody of the same shall be answerable to the same. In the above circumstances, the learned Government Pleader shall get instructions as to whether any action has been taken against the custodian of the documents for the missing documents. Post after two weeks. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall continue to do whatever is necessary to redress the grievance of the petitioner appropriately.”
3. Thereafter the matter again came up for consideration on 15.03.2012. On that day, this Court passed the following order:
“The learned Government Pleader today submits that it is not now possible to pinpoint who is responsible for the missing document since after deposit of the documents by the petitioner several officers have held the post of the custodian of the documents successively. I am not inclined to take it for an answer. When original documents are entrusted with the Government as security for loan granted to Government employees, the officers
**5**
## **W.P.(C).No.1204/2012**
concerned have a duty to keep the documents in safe custody and a particular officer should at all times be responsible for that safe custody. As such the respondent should normally be able to pinpoint the person from whose custody the documents have gone missing. Unless the 2[nd] respondent is able to give this Court a satisfactory explanation, I am inclined to take further action against all the persons including the superior officers for the missing documents. Accordingly, the Chief Conservator of Forests shall file an affidavit answering the above queries. The affidavit shall be filed within two weeks.
Post after two weeks.
In the meanwhile, the respondents shall complete the proceedings for issue of certified copy of the documents and complete the proceedings with the LIC to see that the petitioner does not suffer for want of the documents. In the certified copy to be issued to the petitioner, the head of the institution shall make a detailed endorsement accepting responsibility for the missing original and that the certified copy is obtained and issued to the petitioner in lieu of the original document and stating that the same may be treated by all before whom the said document is presented as the original title deed of the petitioner's property.”
4. Subsequently the matter came up for consideration on 31.07.2012. On that day, the following order is passed:
**6**
## **W.P.(C).No.1204/2012**
“An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent, in which, it is stated that enquiry by the Vigilance wing of the Forest Department has been ordered to find out who is responsible for missing of the original documents of title belonging to the petitioner, which has been deposited as security for the house building advance granted to the petitioner, which has been completely paid off.
Admit.
The learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
The learned Government Pleader shall see that a report regarding the enquiry to be conducted as ordered is placed before this Court immediately after vacation.”
5. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents from the LIC is already received with the endorsement, as directed by this Court in the order dated 15.03.2012. Now the petitioner want an endorsement like that in the sale deed. In the light of the fact that the respondents themselves conceded that the title deed is lost from them, it is their duty to give necessary endorsement in the certified copy of the sale deed also to that effect, as ordered by this Court on 15.03.2012.
**7**
## **W.P.(C).No.1204/2012**
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. The interim order dated 15.03.2012 is recorded.
2. The respondents will give necessary endorsement in the certified copy of the sale deed as directed in the order dated 15.03.2012 so that the sale deed can be treated as the original as stated by this Court in the above order.
3. If a certified copy of the sale deed is produced before the competent officer among the respondents, the competent officer will do the needful within two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the sale deed.
sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**
JV
**8**
## **W.P.(C).No.1204/2012**
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1204/2012`**
```
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF RULE
224E OF THE KERALA FINANCIAL CODE
VOLUME 1
```
```
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.98
ISSUED BY TEH 2ND RESPONDENT
```
- `EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.1.1999 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
- `EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
- `EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER HTE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
```
EXHIBIT P6COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.02.2011
RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE
OFFICE OF HTE 2ND RESPONDNET
```
```
EXHIBIT P7COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.4.2011
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
```
