IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 904 of 2009(G) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.T.SHAJI, MALAMUNDAYIL, MANAKANDAM P.O., ERUNOOR ACRE, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. Addl.2. JESSY SHAJI, W/. SHAJI, MALAMUNDAYIL, MANAKANDAM P.O., ERUNOOR ACRE, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. (Addl.R2 is impleaded as Addl.P2 asper order dt.20.1.2009 in I.A.No.741/09) BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEVIKULAM TALUK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.1-136 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POST BOX NO.4, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, IDUKKI. ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDHYASAGAR FOR R1 SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.904 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Prayer sought for in this writ petition is to direct the first respondent to release the amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner. Petitioners also seek to quash Ext.P8, a notice issued by the said Bank. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners made an application to the first respondent, for a term loan of Rs.5 lakhs for business purposes, offering 1.25 acres of their land as security. According to them the loan was sanctioned in 2007 and Rs.2 lakhs was also released. They requested for releasing the balance amount. That was not done. As a result of which the petitioners could not complete the installation and commenced the cable TV business, for which they availed of the loan. It is stated that because of the default committed by the Bank they WP(c).No.904/09 2 suffered huge loss and therefore repayment also could not be made. Now the Bank by Ext.P8 notice has called upon the petitioners to repay the amount due and it is at this stage the writ petition is filed. 3. The Ist respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioners had applied for a term loan of Rs.5 lakhs. Since, the limit upto which bank on its own has power to grant loan is Rs.1 lakh, the application of the petitioners was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for obtaining sanction. It is stated that the 2nd respondent by Ext.R1(d) rejected the proposal mainly pointing out that the quotation enclosed to the loan application was a doubtful one. It is stated that at that stage the petitioners applied for a business loan of Rs.2 lakhs and that was got sanctioned by the 2nd respondent and the amount was also released on 10.8.2007. According to the Bank, subsequently enclosing Ext.R1(c), a fresh quotation from a supplier of equipments, another application was made by WP(c).No.904/09 3 the petitioners for a term loan of Rs. 2 lakhs. That was also taken up with the 2nd respondent for sanction. It is stated that the application was processed and finally, the 2nd respondent rejected the proposal as per Ext.R1(d) for the reason that the petitioners were already defaulters. Therefore the Bank would submit that so long as the petitioners remain defaulters to the first respondent bank, the 2nd respondent would not accord sanction, in which event, no loan can be sanctioned to the petitioners. It is stated that as at present the petitioners are defaulters, they are justified in issuing Ext.P8. 4. The pleadings in the writ petition would thus show that the petitioners proceed on the basis that a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs was sanctioned by the first respondent bank. However this factual contention of the petitioners is seen disputed by the Bank, relying on Ext.R1(d). According to the Bank though they had recommended the application of the petitioners to the 2nd respondent for sanction, the sanction was rejected. Evidently therefore the parties are at variance as to whether the loan of WP(c).No.904/09 4 Rs.5laks was sanctioned or not. On the materials produced, apart from the recommendation of the Secretary of the first respondent Bank, there is nothing else to show that the loan was sanctioned. If that be so, I am not in a position to conclude that any balance amount out of the loan sanctioned in favour of the petitioners remain outstanding. On the other hand the pleadings of the first respondent is to the effect that the sanctioned amount was only Rs. 2 lakhs and that the same has been paid. Therefore, this court will not be justified in directing the first respondent Bank to release any amount to the petitioners. Admittedly petitioners have not repaid the loan availed of. If so, this court also cannot find fault with the Bank in issuing Ext.P8, calling upon the petitioners to discharge their dues. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.904/09 5