Thangapandi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Thangapandi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu, represented through the District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Authorized Officer, Head Office, Bank of Baroda, No.152, North Veli Street, Simmakkal, Madurai - 625 001.

3.The Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda, Mannadimangalam Branch, Madurai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the and respondent Bank to the third respondent bank, to consider and sanction the scheme loan, after following the due procedure as per the banking regulation, on the basis of the petitioner's representation.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.PM.Vishnuvarthanan For R1 : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan Special Government Pleader For R2 and R3 : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction against the second respondent / authorised officer Bank of Baroda, Madurai and the third respondent to Bank of Baroda, Mannadimangam Branch, Madurai to consider the representation given by the petitioner herein for loan under the Agricultural scheme loan introduced by the Government of India.

2. The petitioner owns land in survey No.36/2A, measuring 1 ares and 31 cents in Ayyankuruvithurai Village, Madurai District. He seeks loan. However, the details have not been given and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 stated that application has also not been filed before them.

3. A direction is given to the petitioner herein to go over to the office of the third respondent and give a complete representation and application, seeking loan under any specific scheme and thereafter the respondents may examine that particular application and if the petitioner satisfies all conditions of rules and regulations may proceed further to process the said application. It is imperative for the petitioner to satisfy the necessary rules and regulations 2/4

which are stipulated for grant of loan. The entire exercise by the respondent may be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date on which the petitioner actually gives a representation, seeking loan in correct form to the third respondent.

4. The Writ Petition is disposed of. It is also to be examined by the respondents whether the scheme is still in force and whether the petitioner would be eligible under the said scheme. These are all part of the rules and regulations to be satisfied by the petitioner herein.

5. It is stated by the learned Special Government Pleader that the first respondent / District Collector, is an unnecessary party to the proceedings.

6. The scheme had been introduced only by the Government of India. The writ petition is dismissed as against the first respondent and disposed of against the respondents 2 and 3. No further orders are required. No costs. 20.04.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No pnn 3/4

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

pnn To The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 20.04.2023 4/4