IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7153 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GOPALAN K.N, S/O.NARAYANAN, KANNOTH HOUSE, DHARBA DESOM, MANNAMANGALAM P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER, THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THRISSUR. 2. THE MANAGER, THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, PATTIKKAD BRANCH, PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE (GENERAL), AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 7153 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the Exhibit P1 loan application accepting Patta No.B4-4251/1999 as security. and ii)Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice”. 2. The petitioner is an Agriculturist and a resident of Thrissur District. For the purpose of reconstructing his old house, he applied for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the first respondent Bank. He also offered to give his property comprised in Survey No.139/P situated in Peechi Village as security for the loan. According to the petitioner, the said Wpc 7153/2010 2 property has been given as security for an earlier loan, which has been closed subsequently. Even though the petitioner is eligible to get the loan, he has been denied the same on the basis of a legal opinion received by the Bank. The petitioner has approached the District Co- operative Registrar by filing a representation, which is also pending. 3. Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, who appears for the first respondent Bank points out that the writ petition itself is not maintainable for the reason that what is challenged is the decision of the Bank in refusing a loan that was sought for. Being a commercial transaction, the Bank was entitled to refuse the request of the petitioner. The petitioner has no right or entitlement to receive the loan and therefore he is not entitled to get any relief from this court. 4. The reliefs in the writ petition to reconsider the decision on Ext.P1 loan application, which is a commercial decision, cannot be granted in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has no right to obtain the loan that is sought for and therefore the decision of the Bank, not to grant the same, cannot be assailed in this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner Wpc 7153/2010 3 is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk