A.Vijaya Lakshmi v. The Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court DATED: 01.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH (Through Video Conferencing) A.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director Tamilnadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Ltd. (TAHDCO) No.31, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Chennai - 600 018.

2.The District Manager Tamilnadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation (TAHDCO) Collectorate Madurai.

3.The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Usilampatti Madurai District.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to forthwith disburse the loan amount of Rs.9,50,000/- to the petitioner to set up "Dairy Farm" as per the sanction order passed by the 2nd respondent Nodal Order in Na.Ka.No.TAHDCO-2017-18-SEPY-MD-39 dated 11.10.2017 based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2020 within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vikram For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Government Advocate for R1&R2 Mr.S.Balasubramanian for R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents to disburse the loan of a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to the petitioner as per the sanction order passed by the second respondent through proceedings dated 11.10.2017.

1/3

2.The case of the petitioner is that she has completed B.Ed., in the year 2009 and she has also registered herself in the Employment Exchange. A scheme was introduced in the year 2017, wherein, loan was sanctioned under the Self Employment Programme for Youth (SEPY). The petitioner made an application before the second respondent seeking for the approval of loan in order to set up a Diary Farm. The application was entertained and the petitioner was enquired and the second respondent through proceedings dated 11.10.2017 referred the matter to the third respondent Bank for disbursal of the loan.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been repeatedly approaching the third respondent for the loan and till date, it has not been disbursed. Left with no other alternative, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nodal order passed by the second respondent dated 11.10.2017, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to act upon the representation made by the petitioner on 05.12.2020 and sanction the loan, if the petitioner has satisfied all the other requirements, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the third respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order. A copy of the representation shall also be marked to the second respondent.

7. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) RR Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

2/3

To 1.The Director Tamilnadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Ltd. (TAHDCO) No.31, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Chennai - 600 018.

2.The District Manager Tamilnadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation (TAHDCO) Collectorate Madurai.

3.The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Usilampatti Madurai District.

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-21036[F] dated 02/07/2021 ) 01.07.2021 RK (20.07.2021) 3P 5C 3/3