ORDER : Heard Sri D.R.Varma, learned counsel representing Sri C.S.N.Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri R. Rajendra Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “To issue a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 nd Respondent by not releasing the original documents deposited vide registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed bearing Doc.Nos.6278 of 2012, dt. 14-09-2012 and 5633 of 2013, dated 12-07-2013 in-spite of paying the entire loan availed by the petitioner firm vide loan account number 74-908201 pursuant to the Notices dt. 06.11.2020, 02-09-2021, 06-04-2022 and 15-09-2022 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of article 300-A of constitution and directing the 2 nd respondent to execute re- conveyance deed in respect of the above Memorandum of Deposit Title Deed bearing Doc.Nos. 6278 of 2012, dt. 14- 09-2012 and 5633 of 2013, dt. 12-07-2013 in favour of the petitioner in the office of SRO, Rajendranagar and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is as under: It is the specific case of the petitioner that a term loan had been sanctioned vide sanction No. 006064 and Lmo.AFC/PROJ- 1/T-1/749082/2012-13, dated 06-07-2012 to a tune of 800 lakhs for construction of 4-screen multiplex and shopping mall at Sy.No. 495/E/EE, 436/E/EE 505/E/EE, 506/E/EE and 515/E/EE Attapur inner ring road, Rajendranagar Mandal, RR District under general loan scheme on development basis with 50% share in the project subject to some terms and conditions to repay the same in 33 quarterly instalments,payable on every 1 st March, 1 st June, 1 st September and 1 st December with annual rate of interest at 17% per annum. It is the further the case of the petitioner that because of the financial crisis in the year 2016, the petitioner vide letter dated 20.05.2016, requested the corporation for wavier of outstanding monthly interest payable with a proposal to prepay the loan amount by raising funds from the sale of property in the mall as per the clause No.19 of sanction terms and requested to give NOC for the proposed sale of properties i.e., shop No 110, 302, 402 to third parties. The petitioner vide letter dated 08-06-2016 addressed to the Branch Manager APSFC, RR District East Branch, Chirag-Ali-Lane, Hyderabad intimated the payment of Rs.5 crores towards the loan repayment and to acknowledge the payment made to the bank account bearing No- 30291010000480 vide cheque No 318992 dated 08-06-2016 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Attapur Branch for an amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Only) towards loan account No. 74908202 and further requested to issue the receipt for the payment made along with revised EMI schedule and balance loan amount payable after payment of Rs5.00 cr. The petitioner again vide letter dated 01-11-2016, addressed to the Branch Manager, APSFC,RR District East Branch, Chirag-Ali-Lane, Hyderabad intimated the fact of payment of Rs 81 Lakhs towards part repayment of loan amount and requested for reduction of Rate of Interest by at-least 1.50% and release of collateral security original documents since the petitioner had repaid about Rs 6.00 crores out of Rs 7.95 crores of total loan amount. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide petitioner’s letter dated 21.04.2018, the petitioner intimated to the Branch Manager of the respondent corporation about the repayment of Rs.108 lakhs towards the loan amount by way of Cheque No.247670, dated 21-04-2018, drawn on Syndicate bank, Attapur Branch and requested to issue the receipt towards the same and further requested for reduction of interest to 11% and to release two collateral security original documents, along with revised EMI schedule, since Petitioner had repaid about Rs 7.5 crores out of Rs. 7.95 crores of total loan amount. It is further the case of the petitioner that by the petitioner’s letter dated 16-02-2019, petitioner had intimated the Branch Manager of the corporation that the repayment of Rs.25 lakhs towards the loan account was made after selling one of the properties in the ground floor of the mall and paid the same towards the loan account. It is further the case of the petitioner that by the petitioner’s letter dated 16-02-2019, petitioner had intimated the Branch Manager of the corporation that the repayment of Rs.25 lakhs towards the loan account was made after selling one of the properties in the ground floor of the mall and paid the same towards the loan account. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 18-06-2020, petitioner had received a mail from the corporation to pay an amount of Rs.3,03,484/- towards the closure of the loan account and in response there to petitioner had paid full and final loan amount of Rs. 3,03,484/- vide cheque no. 160859 dated 08-07- 2020 drawn on syndicate bank, Attapur Branch and requested to provide the receipt along with “Loan Closure Certificate” and further requested to arrange an authorised person of TSFC for release of documents mortgaged at SRO, Rajendranagar. Surprisingly on 13-07-2020 the corporation through its official email addressed to the petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the said loan closure amount of Rs.3,03,484/- and again demanded to make payment of an additional amount of Rs. 1500/- towards delayed period of interest till payment of full and final closure of loan and the same was also repaid by the petitioner on 14.07.2020. It is further the case of the petitioner that after paying the entire due amount in respect of the loan account as well as delay charges as demanded by the corporation, to the petitioner’s shock and surprise the petitioner had received the letter dated 06-11-2020 asking the petitioner to pay premature premium charges amounting to Rs.5,12,589/- and excess interest concession of Rs.27,627/- totalling to Rs.5,40,216/- against the petitioner’s loan account. To the said letter the petitioner vide letter dated 18-11-2020 submitted petitioner’s explanation explaining the reasons as to why the petitioner was not able to pay the premature premium charges and also further explained that after getting approval from the corporation only the petitioner had sold the properties, which are mortgaged to it and whatever sale proceeds were received the same were deposited in the petitioner’s loan account as per the sanctioned terms and at any point of time the petitioner was not informed with regard to payment of premature premium charges as demanded by the respondent corporation and the same is illegal and arbitrary. Finally, the petitioner had requested the corporation to release the documents under mortgage. Finally, the petitioner had requested the corporation to release the documents under mortgage. It is further the case of the petitioner that in spite of the request made for the release of documents, the corporation mechanically and in a routine manner by its letter dated 06.04.2022, informed the petitioner that the request for waiver of the premature premium charges amounting to Rs.5,12,589 and excess interest concession of Rs.27,627/- totalling to Rs.5,40,216/- against the petitioner loan account, cannot be accepted and petitioner was advised to pay the said amounts immediately. It is the further the case of the petitioner that the said communication dated 06-04-2022 from the corporation is itself in violation of the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 06-07-2012, more particularly clause 19 of the same, and in view of repayment of the entire loan amount by the petitioner as confirmed officially through their emails dated 18-06-2020 about full loan closure amount and subsequent email dated 13.07.2020 acknowledging the receipt of the loan closure amount of Rs.3,03,484/- but however the respondent corporation again demanded the petitioner to make additional payment of Rs.1500/- towards delayed period of interest till payment of full and final closure of loan and the same was also repaid by the petitioner on 14-07-2020, but however the respondent Corporation failed to release the documents from mortgage and execute the reconveyance deed in petitioner’s favour as per the terms of the sanction letter dated 06.07.2012. It is the further the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 05-09-2022 petitioner requested the corporation to release entire mortgaged properties which are in the corporation custody by executing re-conveyance deed in petitioner’s favour within a period of seven(7) days from the date of receipt of the said letter with interest @17% on the mortgaged properties value of more than Rs. 10 crores from the date of final payment i.e., 14.07.2020, the 2 nd respondent corporation however had not acted upon the said representation, aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) Sanction letter vide AFC/PROJ-I/T-I/749082 01/2012-13, dated 06.07.2012 by APSFC to the petitioner herein and in particular Clause 19 which is extracted hereunder: “19. The firm shall not alienate or sell any part of the share of the premises falling to their share. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) Sanction letter vide AFC/PROJ-I/T-I/749082 01/2012-13, dated 06.07.2012 by APSFC to the petitioner herein and in particular Clause 19 which is extracted hereunder: “19. The firm shall not alienate or sell any part of the share of the premises falling to their share. However as and when if any part of the space/area is proposed for sale, the firm shall obtain NOC from the corporation upon payment of the sale consideration to the corporation for adjustment of the loan account. The firm shall submit an undertaking to this effect.” B) Email, dated 13.07.2020 from the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner herein which is extracted hereunder: “Sir, We received the amount of Rs.3,03,484/- on 10.07.2020. The closure amount which we have informed to you is upto 30.06.2020 only. From 01.07.2020 to till date the interest amount have been generated which is falling due is upto Rs.1500/- in your account, we request you to kindly make the payment for closure of your loan account. Thanking you sir” C) Email, dated 18.07.2020 from the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner herein which is extracted hereunder: “Sir, Good Morning Regarding closure of your loan account as mentioned in earlier mail P.P.charges are applicable, Your loan repayment schedule is upto 01.11.2022, due to pre closure of the loan account premature premium charges including GST have been charged as per terms and conditions. You are requested to pay the premature premium charges including GST of Rs.685000/- towards your loan closure. Thanking you sir” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the communication dated 06.04.2022 from the corporation informing the petitioner that the request of the petitioner for waiver of the premature charges is not accepted is in violation of the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 06.07.2012 and more particularly clause 19 of the same (referred to and extracted above), and in-spite of the petitioner repaying the entire loan amount as confirmed officially through the corporation email dated 18.06.2020 about full loan closure amount and subsequent email dated 13-07-2020 acknowledging the receipt of the loan closure amount of Rs. 3,03,484/- and the 2 nd respondent corporation again demanded the petitioner to make payment of an additional amount of Rs. 3,03,484/- and the 2 nd respondent corporation again demanded the petitioner to make payment of an additional amount of Rs. 1500/- towards delayed period of interest towards the payment of full and final closure of loan and though the same was repaid by the petitioner on 14-07-2020, the respondent corporation however failed to discharge its bounden duty to release the document from mortgage and execute the re- conveyance deed in petitioner’s favour as per the terms of the sanction letter. Aggrieved by the same petitioner filed the present writ petition. 6. A bare perusal of the email of the 2 nd respondent corporation dated 18-07-2020 is in contradiction of their own email dated 13-07-2020 (referred to extracted above) 7. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent corporation and a specific stand is taken contending that clause 19 of the sanction letter does not apply to the collateral properties and that repayment charges if any would be only calculated only after closure of the loan and that while processing the closure of the loan account of the petitioner, the auditors of the respondent corporation had identified that the loan of the petitioner attracts 3% premium in view of the advance payment of instalments and therefore it was brought to the notice of the petitioner with regard to the premature premium charges applicable to the loan account of the petitioner which amounts to Rs. 6,85,000/- and at the request of the petitioner, part of the premature amount was waived and the petitioner was advised to pay the amount of Rs. 5,40,216/- and placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent corporation, the learned Standing Counsel sought for dismissal of the present writ petition. 8. Condition No 41 to be complied with before initial disbursement as per the special terms and conditions to the sanction accorded to the petitioner by the respondent corporation is extracted hereunder:- “ 41. 3% premium shall be charged for all advance payment of instalments of principal, exceeding two instalments. Any intention to close the loan account shall be intimated 6 months in advance and make the payment with the required premature premium.” 9. 3% premium shall be charged for all advance payment of instalments of principal, exceeding two instalments. Any intention to close the loan account shall be intimated 6 months in advance and make the payment with the required premature premium.” 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner made payment as per clause 19 of the sanction letter dated 06-07-2012, the said plea is disputed in the counter filed by the respondent corporation and a specific stand is taken by the respondent corporation at page 6 and para ‘9’ of the counter affidavit contending that the clause 19 of the sanction letter is applicable only to primary security basing on the development agreement and further NOC has to be obtained prior to sale of the property and the same was not followed by the petitioner and the petitioner unit voluntarily made the payment without NOC. 10. This court opines that though condition annexed to the special terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 06-07-2012 issued to the petitioner by the respondent corporation indicates that 3% premium would be charged for all advance payment of instalments of principal exceeding two instalments, this court opines that the same was not intimated to the petitioner in the email dated 13-07-2020 of the respondent corporation addressed to the petitioner unit and the petitioner unit was called upon to make a payment of Rs. 1500/- for closure of the loan account towards interest. This court opines that nothing prevented the respondent bank to mention about the payment of 3% premium amount by the petitioner for all advance payment of instalments of principal exceeding two instalments as stipulated in condition no 41 of the sanctioned terms of loan by the respondent corporation beside the foreclosure charges. Only foreclosure charges are mentioned in the said email dated 13-07-2020 and the subsequent email issued by the respondent corporation dated 18-07-2020 referred to and extracted above is in contradiction of the email dated 13- 07-2020 issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was curiously requested to pay the premature premium charges including GST of Rs. 685000/- towards the subject loan closure. 11. It is settled lawthat a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which otherwise would have had. 685000/- towards the subject loan closure. 11. It is settled lawthat a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which otherwise would have had. On this ground alone, this court opines that petitioner’s representation dated 05.09.2022 addressed to the respondent corporation to release entire mortgaged properties which are in the custody of the respondent corporation by executing Re-conveyance deed in petitioner’s favour, needs to be considered by the 2 nd respondent corporation. 12. Taking into consideration:- (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case; (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and also learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 5; (c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. (d) Sanction letter vide AFC/PROJ-I/T-I/749082 01/2012-13, dated 06.07.2012 by APSFC to the petitioner herein and in particular Clause 19 (referred to and extracted above); (d) Email, dated 13.07.2020 from the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above) (e) Email, dated 18.07.2020 from the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above); (f) Condition number 41 of the Sanction letter vide AFC/PROJ-I/T-I/74 9082 01/2012-13, dated 06- 07-2012 by APSFC to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.09.2022, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 05.09.2022 within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.