Madras High CourtWP/7029/2015dismissed

V.Veeramani v. The Regional Manager

2016-12-14Honourable Mr Justice S. Manikumar,Honourable Mr Justice M. Govindaraj6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 14/12/2016 C O R A M The Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.Govindaraj Writ Petition No.7029 of 2015 V. Veeramani ...

Petitioner Vs

1. The Regional Manager ICICI Home Finance Ltd Arihant Building Second Floor East Wing, South Phase Plot No.24, Block No.1 Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur Chennai 600 058.

2. The Manager ICICI Home Finance Ltd Below ICICI Bank Cheran Plaza Opp. To Kannan Department Stores Trichy Road Coimbatore 641 018.

3. The Authorised Signatory Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd No.45 Montieth Road Egmore Chennai 600 008.

Now Office at 715 - C, Seventh Floor Spencer's Plaza Phase II 769 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

4. The District Collector Sampath Nagar Erode District Erode 638 011.

5. The Deputy Collector Office of the Deputy Collector-cum- Sub-Divisional Magistrate Gobi Chettipalayam Erode District.

6. The Tahsildar Taluk Office Gobi Chettipalayam Erode District.

7. The Superintendent of Police Erode District Panneerselvam Park Erode.

...

Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18/2/2015 in accordance with law by permitting the petitioner to settle the dues as one time settlement and discharge the house loan pertaining to the house at No.17 Perianna Veedhi, No.2, Modichur, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

For petitioner ...

Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For respondents ...

Mr.V.Jayachandran for R.R.1 to 3 Mr.K.V.Dhanapal Additional Government Pleader for R.R.4 to 7.

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J) Prayer sought for in the writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 18/2/2015, in accordance with law by permitting the petitioner to settle the dues as one time settlement and to discharge the house loan, pertaining to the house at No.17 Perianna Veedhi, No.2, Modichur, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

2. After considering a catena of decisions on the legal right of a person to seek for writ of mandamus, a Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, reported in 2004 (5) CTC 689, at Paragraph Nos.7,8,16 and 18, held as follows:

"7.In our considered opinion it is not proper for the Court to interfere in such matters relating to recovery of loans. Such matters are contractual in nature and writ jurisdiction is not the proper remedy for this. A writ lies when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or there is violation of law. No writ lies merely for directing one time settlement or for directing rescheduling of the loan or for fixing instalments in connection with the loan. It is only the bank or the financial institution which granted the loan which can re-schedule it or fix one time settlement or grant instalments. The Court has no right under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct grant of one time settlement or for re-scheduling of the loan, or to fix instalments.

8. No doubt Article 226 on its plain language states that a writ can be used by the High Court for enforcing a fundamental right or for 'any other purpose'. However, by judician interpretation the words 'any other purpose' have been interpreted to mean the enforcement of any legal right or performance of any legal duty, vide Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1044. In the present case, the writ petitioner has really prayed for a Mandamus to the Corporation to grant it a one time settlement, but no violation of any law has been pointed out. In our opinion, no such mandamus can be issued in this case, and hence the writ petition should not have been entertained. A mandamus is issued only when the petitioner can show that he has a legal right to the performance of a public duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought.

16. A loan is granted in terms of the contract, and grant of one time settlement or rescheduling of the loan amount is really a modification of the contract, which can only be done by mutual consent of the parties, vide Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Court cannot alter the terms of the contract.

18.

Before parting with the case we would like to mention that recovery of tens of thousands of crore rupees of loans of banks and financial institutions has been held up by Court orders under Article 226 proceedings which were really unwarranted. However, much sympathy a Court may have for a party, a writ Court must exercise its jurisdiction on well settled principles, and not a mere sympathy or compassion. No doubt, there be hardship to a party, but unless violation of law is shown the Court cannot interfere. Holding up recoveries of loans by unwarranted Court orders is causing incalculable harm to our economy, since unless the loan is recovered a fresh loan cannot be granted to needy persons. The Courts must keep these considerations in mind."

3. Following the same, in M/s.Digivision Electronics Ltd., Registered Office at No.A5 & 6, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 32 Vs. Indian Bank, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Head Office, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 and another, reported in 2005 (3) LW 269, at paragraph No.42, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "42. Some of the learned counsel submitted that the Court should direct one time settlement or fixing of installment or rescheduling the loan. In Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs.

Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, 2004 (5) CTC 689, it has been held that this Court cannot pass any such order in writ jurisdiction, since directing one time settlement or granting installments is really rescheduling the loan, which can only be done by the bank or financial institution which granted the loan. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reschedule a loan. A writ is issued when there is violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record, and not for rescheduling loans. The Court must exercise restraint in such matters, and not depart from well settled legal principles".

4. At paragraph No.46, in M/s.Digivision Electronics Ltd., Registered Office at No.A5 & 6, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 32 Vs. Indian Bank, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Head Office, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 and another, reported in 2005 (3) LW 269, the Hon'ble Division Bench has further held as follows:

"46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence

this Court under Article 226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law, vide R.Nanjappan Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore, 2005 WLR 47, Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (6) SC 20. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-IV) Ltd., Dindigul Vs. P.Ellappan, 2005 (1) MLJ 639, Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) SCC 134, etc."

5. In the light of the above decisions, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Regional Manager ICICI Home Finance Ltd Arihant Building, Second Floor, East Wing, South Phase Plot No.24, Block No.1 Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur Chennai 600 058.

2. The Manager ICICI Home Finance Ltd, Below ICICI Bank Cheran Plaza Opp. To Kannan Department Stores Trichy Road Coimbatore 641 018.