Dismissed

Johnson V.M. v. Union of India and Others

Kerala HC21 May 2010WP(C)/6327/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a student, sought a mandatory order directing a bank to issue an education loan. The petition was dismissed because the petitioner approached the court with a false statement regarding the non-supply of an application form, which was disproved by admitted evidence showing they had received communications.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without announcement of costs, as the petitioner approached the court with a false statement and did not have clean hands.

Johnson V.M. Vs Union of India and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 6327 of 2010(M) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

JOHNSON V.M, S/O.MATHEW V.J,AGED 18 YEARS, VAZHANNAKULAM HOUSE, OOURAKANADU PO PARATHODU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 512.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K SRI.LAIJU CHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIOC AFFAIRS (BANKING DIVISION) NORTH BLOCK, JANPATH BHAVAN NEW DELHI 110001.

¶13

THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CHITTADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶14

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD MUMBAI 400 001.

¶15

ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 SHRI.P.C.CHACKO, CGC FOR R1 SRI.C.A.JOY FOR R2

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 6327/2010

¶18

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL ADMISSION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF GUIDELINES.

¶19

EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 26-12-2009.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT. 18-12-2009.

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶26

W.P(C) No. 6327 of 2010

¶27

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶28

Dated this, the 21^st day of May, 2010.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner is a student. He has filed this writ petition alleging that the 2^nd respondent is not even supplying the petitioner with an application form for applying for education loan. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

¶31

“a) Issue a writ or mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2^nd respondent to issue educational loan to the petitioner as per Ext. P2 guidelines.

¶32

b) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get educational loan as per Ext. P2 guidelines.”

¶33

At the time of admission on 25-2-2010, this Court directed the 2^nd respondent to issue an application form for education loan to the petitioner on production of a copy of that order. Now the 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that earlier the petitioner was supplied with an application form, in which the petitioner has submitted an application for education loan, in which Ext. R2(A) communication was issued to him directing the petitioner to furnish one more guarantor for enabling them to sanction the loan, which the petitioner has not complied with.

¶34

Today, when the matter was taken up, counsel for the petitioner was absent. The counsel for the 2^nd respondent was heard.

¶35

The petitioner has come before this Court with a false statement that the 2^nd respondent had refused to give him an application form for applying for education loan. This is clearly disproved by Ext. R2(A). The petitioner had acknowledged having

¶36

W.P.C. No. 6327/2010. -: 2 :-

¶37

received Ext. R2(A) by signing in the copy of the same as is evident from Ext.R2(A). That being so, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. For that reason, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶39

Tds/

Johnson V.M. v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnson V.M. v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurudeeksha Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Sabareesh.S. Vs University of Kerala & Another

Josmy Joseph Vs Union of India and Others

K.v.Hamsakutty Vs the Grievance Redressal Officer & Others

Vinodkumar Kuttickat Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others

Kollengode Block Registered Seed Growere Vs State of Kerala and Another