Madras High CourtWP(MD)/22829/2016disposed of

S.Rajalingam v. The Assistant General Manager

2016-11-28Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Writ Petition(MD)No.22829 of 2016 S.Rajalingam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, 72, P.T.Rajan Road, B.B.Kulam, Madurai - 625 002.

2.The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, 110, Sekkalai Road, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to sanction the additional loan for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the instruction circular No.9859, dated 06.03.2014 issued by the General Manager, Retail Banking Department of Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidwan Bhawan Marg, Narimen Point, Mumbai - 21, within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to sanction additional loan for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the Circular No.9859, dated 06.03.2014, issued by the General Manager, Retail Banking Department of Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidwan Bhawan Marg, Narimen Point, Mumbai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

- 21, within a stipulated time.

3. According to the petitioner, he is a pensioner and applied for Pension Loan to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas the second respondent sanctioned only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and subsequently, he made a representation to the respondents to sanction additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the same was not considered so far, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Circular No.9859, dated 06.03.2014 issued by the General Manager, Retail Banking Department of Union Bank of India, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas the second respondent sanctioned only Rs.1,00,000/- without considering the above said Circular.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they will consider the petitioner's representation, in the light of the above said Circular.

6. In such circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated dated 30.05.2016 and pass suitable orders on the same, based on the above said Circular, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, 72, P.T.Rajan Road, B.B.Kulam, Madurai - 625 002. 2.The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, 110, Sekkalai Road, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. +1 cc to M/s.V.Sasikumar, Advocate in SR.No.73418 +1 cc to M/s.N.DilipKumar, Advocate in SR.No.73458 pm CSL/KP/SAR-I/09.12.2016 :2P/5C W.P(MD)No.22829 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 28.11.2016