THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.25843 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent Andhra Bank in not taking any action on the representation dated 03-06-2010, submitted by the petitioner herein, as illegal. The petitioner submits that he is a permanent resident of Kurnool City and he holds a savings bank account with the Andhra Bank and that the 2nd respondent branch of the Andhra Bank at Kurnool, prompted by extraneous considerations, has sanctioned loan in a sum of Rs.75-00 lacs in favour of the 3rd respondent for his business development of a small scale unit, on 13-08-2009, whereas no such unit was in existence and that without properly being satisfied about the genuineness of the loan claim, the 1st respondent bank has sanctioned the loan, thus, sacrificing the larger public interest. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and it is stated that the writ petitioner is a chronic litigant and in the guise of carrying on his profession as a journalist, keeps intimidating various persons for gaining undue benefit and advantage for himself. It is further alleged that the vested interests in the society also use his services for the purpose of targetting various individuals so as to force such individuals into submission. On merits, the 3rd respondent would submit that its Unit has been registered on 02-07-2009 as a small scale industry and that it was required to commence its business from January 2010 and it has already commenced its business from January 2010 and after thorough verification and following the due process, the loan applied for has been sanctioned by the 2nd respondent branch of the Andhra Bank. There is no impropriety in the matter of sanction of loan by the said bank and above all, it has been promptly repaying the loan as per the schedule of installments drawn by the said bank. The 3rd respondent, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed as it is lacking merits. The 1st respondent Andhra Bank is a Nationalised Bank. It entirely answered the description of the ‘State’ for the purpose of Article 12 and Part-III of our Constitution. It carries on banking business. In the course of its business, it grants loan to eligible borrowers. Necessary procedures will be followed and adopted for safeguarding the interests of the institution. Thereafter, it also keeps monitoring the loan accounts by undertaking regular and periodical verification of the safety factors. So long as the borrowers properly utilize the loan amount sanctioned and they keep repaying the loan amount as per the schedule of repayment drawn, no further action is needed to be initiated by the respondent bank in that regard other than collecting the installments. Merely because the 1st respondent is the State, all its actions do not become susceptible for the judicial review to be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Like any other private citizen, it can enter into a contract with a third party. Sanction of loan is one such contract. The terms and conditions, subject to which such contracts are entered into, are the result of negotiations. So long as gross abuse of the power available is not demonstrated, the respondent bank cannot be directed, in every case, to establish its credentials in the matter of sanctioning of loans. Instead of straightaway approaching the Chairman & Managing Director of the Andhra Bank, the proper course could have been, approaching the next highest level officer, such as, Chief Manager / Regional Manager / Assistant General Manager of the Bank, who could have, as well, verified the tenability of the claim made by the petitioner. When the petitioner does not follow such a mechanism, h i s bona fides behind the present litigation become suspect. The sanctity and purity of the stream of justice shall not be allowed by a vested interest to be contaminated in any manner. The process of this Court cannot be put to abuse for deriving any undue advantage at the instance of the third parties. Simultaneously, the process of this Court cannot be used for arm-twisting tactics for securing the third parties to succumb to their dictates. I have, therefore, no hesitation to dismiss this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). 15 days time is granted to the petitioner for depositing the costs of Rs.1,000/- with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Upon such deposit, the Registrar(Judicial) will transfer the same to the Chief Justice Relief Fund and if the petitioner fails to deposit the said sum, the matter may be taken up with the Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool to recover the same from him as arrears of land revenue. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 17th October 2011