M.M. Prakash v. The Branch Manager

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :09.10.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.29076 of 2017 M.M.Prakash ..Petitioner vs The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Hulical Branch, Salas, Katary Post, The Nilgiris - 643 213.

..Respondent Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to disburse the sanctioned loan amount to the petitioner without insisting any collateral security as per clause No.4.2 of Reserve Bank master direction FIDD.MSME & NFS12/6.02.31/2017-2017 dated 24.07.2017 within the time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Arokia Maniraj For Respondent : Mr.Srinath Sridevan

O R D E R

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to disburse the sanctioned loan amount to the petitioner without insisting any collateral security as per clause No.4.2 of Reserve Bank master direction FIDD.MSME & NFS12/6.02.31/2017-2017 dated 24.07.2017. 2.The grievances of the writ petitioner is that he made an application for grant of loan under the scheme. However, the loan sanctioned has not been disbursed on account of the fact that the writ petitioner has not produced collateral security. 3.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that such a collateral security is not required as per clause No.4.2 of Reserve Bank master direction FIDD.MSME & NFS12/6.02.31/20172017 dated 24.07.2017.

4.The learned counsel for the respondent states that the informations submitted by the writ petitioner are incorrect and the same was found during the inspection by the Bank officials. On identifying the fact that the informations provided by the writ petitioner is incorrect, the Bank officials have refused to disburse the loan amount, which was sanctioned. It is further clarified that the respondent Bank has not asked any collateral security.

5.This Court is of an opinion that such complex facts and circumstances arising on account of sanctioning of loan by the Nationalized Bank cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the writ petitioner to establish his bona fide and by submitting documents before the authorities concerned. The genuinity or otherwise of those documents are bound to be verified by the Bank officials before disbursing the loan amount to the writ petitioner. This Court cannot issue a direction to disburse the loan amount in a writ petition, wherein it is brought to the notice of this Court that certain informations submitted by the writ petitioner were incorrect.

6.This being the factum of the case, the relief as such sought for cannot be granted. However, it is left open to the respondents to consider the documents submitted by the writ petitioner, if any and accordingly, take a decision and pass orders on merits and by following the rules in force. 7.With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. kak Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

To The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Hulical Branch, Salas, Katary Post, The Nilgiris - 643 213.

+1cc to Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj, Advocate SR.NO.70357 +1cc to Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Advocate SR.NO.70745 PA(CO) sm:29.10.2018 W.P.No.29076 of 2017