Disposed

Mr.C.Senthilkumar, M/a-41 v. The Managing Director

Madras HC18 Apr 2016WP/7869/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the bank to disburse a loan sanctioned under the TAHDCO Entrepreneur Development Programme (EDP) following an earlier order releasing subsidy.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was permitted to approach the 5th respondent with a request to disburse the loan; the 5th respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Mr.C.Senthilkumar, M/a-41 Vs The Managing Director — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.7869 of 2016

¶6

C.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
TAHDCO,
Chennai-600 018.
2. District Manager,
District Manager Office,
TAHDCO, Kancheepuram.
3. The Collector,
Kancheepuram District Collector Office,
Kancheepuram.
4. The Regional Manager,
Canara Bank Circle Office,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
5. The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Cheyyur Branch,
Cheyyur-603 302. ... Respondents
Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the respondents 1 and 4 to direct the 5 th respondent to pass
suitable orders on the representation sent by the petitioner
dated 01.02.2016 with a direction to disburse loan to the
petitioner as per Nodal Order No.A1/EDP-433/2015/2016 dated
06.11.2015 under TAHDCO Scheme.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Anandaraj For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.K.Radhakrishnamurthy 4 and 5

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 4, to issue directions to the 5^th respondent to pass suitable orders, on the representation sent by the petitioner, dated 01.02.2016 with a further direction to disburse loan to the petitioner as per Nodal Order No.A1/EDP-433/2015/2016, dated 06.11.2015 under TAHDCO Scheme.

¶11

According to the petitioner, he belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community and he applied for loan to set up Cooking Vessels Supplier Shop at Cheyyur under the scheme of TAHDCO Entrepreneur Development Programme (EDP) on 05.08.2014. The 2^nd respondent called him to attend an interview on 10.09.2014 10.30 a.m. at Panjayat Union Office, Achirapakkam before the TAHDCO Selection Committee, by letter dated 28.08.2014. Accordingly, he attended the interview along with necessary documents and he was selected as an eligible person for loan and called for TAHDCO Claim Form III (consent letter) from the 5^th respondent. Thereafter, the 5^th respondent sent Form III to the 2^nd respondent on 16.06.2015 with remarks stating that they are ready to give loan to borrower after getting subsidy and placed the same before the 3^rd respondent for necessary orders. Based on the same, the 3^rd respondent passed Nodal Order No.A1/EDP433/2015/2016 dated 06.11.2015 releasing subsidy of Rs.2,25,000/- to the 5^th respondent and directed the 5^th respondent to sanction loan to the petitioner. A copy of the said order has been communicated to the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent. However, the 5^th respondent refused to give loan to him. The said order is valid only for 6 months from the date of the order. In this regard, the petitioner sent a representation to the 1^st respondent on 01.02.2016 and the 4^th respondent on 08.02.2016 to issue suitable directions to the 5^th respondent to sanction loan to him under TAHDCO EDP Scheme. Since there is no response for the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner approached the 5^th respondent bank on several occasions, the bank has not come forward to sanction loan to him under TAHDCO EDP Scheme.

¶13

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 submitted that they are prepared to consider the request of the petitioner to disburse loan amount under TAHDCO EDP Scheme.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court permits the petitioner to approach the 5^th respondent with a request to disburse the loan amount under TAHDCO EDP Scheme, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On making such request, the 5^th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to the disbursement of loan under TAHDCO EDP Scheme, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Managing Director,
TAHDCO,
Chennai-600 018.
2. District Manager,
District Manager Office,
TAHDCO, Kancheepuram.
3. The Collector,
Kancheepuram District Collector Office,
Kancheepuram.
4. The Regional Manager,
Canara Bank Circle Office,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
5. The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Cheyyur Branch,
Cheyyur-603 302.
+1cc to M/S V.Jayaprakash-Narayana, Advocate sr.24352
W.P.No.7869 of 2016
rsi(CO)
srg(21/04/2016)

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.C.Senthilkumar, M/a-41 v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.C.Senthilkumar, M/a-41 v. The Managing Director

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

K.Manjunath Vs The Inspector of Police

K.Bharathi Vs The District Collector

Kaliyaperumal Vs The District Collector

Mr.E.Jothilingam, M/a-41 Vs The Managing Director

Mr.Rajkumar, M/a-41 Vs The Managing Director

S.Karlen Nesan Vs Sri Manakula Vinayagar