Dismissed

M.Arumugam, v. The General Manager

Madras HC9 Sept 2019WP/23783/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandate to sanction and disburse an educational loan. The Bank had rejected the application due to discrepancies in the residential address provided. The Court held that the Bank's discretion in loan disbursement is non-justiciable absent malafide or arbitrariness.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus dismissing with direction to make fresh application with proper details.

M.Arumugam, Vs The General Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.09.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.23783 of 2019

¶6

Mr.M.Arumugam .. Petitioner

¶7

/versus/

¶8

1.The General Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai Zone, College Lane, Chennai 600 006.

¶9

2.The Regional General Manager, State Bank of India, Villupuram Region, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Street, Villupuram 605 602.

¶10

3.The Manager, State Bank of India, Sendurai Town and Taluk, Ariyalur District. .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and disburse a sum of Rs.1,18,700/- per year towards Educational loan for undergoing the B.E. (Electronics and Communications) at Erode Sengunthar Engineering College, Thudupathi, Edore District, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Ilamurugu

¶13

For Respondents:Mr.Chevanan Mohan for King and Partridge for R1 to R3

¶14

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and disburse a sum of Rs.1,18,700/- per year towards Educational loan for undergoing the B.E.(Electronics and Communications) at Erode

¶15

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

¶16

Sengunthar Engineering College, Thudupathi, Edore District, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that he applied for educational loan to support his daughter, who is pursuing Engineering Course in Erode Sengunthar Engineering College. However, the loan application of the petitioner has been rejected, since the application does not carry the correct address of the residence and when the Officers of the Bank went for inspection, they found that the applicant is not residing in the address given in the application.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the physical application presented by the petitioner indicates that the applicant resided at D.No.3/112, Sivan Koil Street, Neivanam. In the said address before disbursement of loan verification was conducted and it was found that for the past five years, nobody is residing in the said address. Now, the petitioner states that they are living in the neighbouring street bearing No.3/200B Ramasamy Nagar, Neivanam.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that even in the affidavit, the petitioner has stated his residence number as 3/112 Sivan Koil Street, Neivanam. His community certificate and income certificate indicate that he is residing at No.3/112 Sivan Koil Street, Neivanam. Further, he would submit that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he is residing at No.3/112 Sivan Koil Street, Neivanam. The community certificate and the income certificate indicate that he is a residence of 3/112 Sivan Koil Street, Neivanam. Likewise the Aadhar Card of the petitioner Arumugam indicates that he is a residence of No.3/112 Ramasamy Nagar. Whereas the Aadhar card of the petitioner's daughter for whom the educational loan sought indicates that she is residing at No.3/200B Ramasamy Nagar. The Passbook of the joint account held by the petitioner and his daughter indicates that they are residing at No.3/200B Ramasamy Nagar, Neivanam. Since the petitioner has given difference addresses in different documents and the field verification also discloses that they are not residing at No.3/112 Sivan Koil Street, the address in the application, the Bank has rightly rejected the loan application.

¶20

This Court finds no error in the decision of the bank rejecting the loan application. The discretion of the Bank for disbursement of the loan is non justiciable, unless and until malafide or arbitrariness is established. In the case of the petitioner, this Court does not find any arbitrariness. There is no iota of material to attribute any malafide or

¶21

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

¶22

arbitrariness in the decision of the bank. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶23

However, the dismissal of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of the petitioner to make fresh application with proper details for consideration of his loan application. No costs.

¶24

ari Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The General Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai Zone, College Lane, Chennai 600 006. 2.The Regional General Manager, State Bank of India, Villupuram Region, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Street, Villupuram 605 602. 3.The Manager, State Bank of India, Sendurai Town and Taluk, Ariyalur District. +1cc to Mr.G.Ilamurugu, Advocate, SR.No.78404 +1cc to M/s.King & Partridge, Advocate, SR.No.78074

¶27

W.P.No.23783 of 2019 Kak(16/10/2019)

¶28

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

M.Arumugam, v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Arumugam, v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.a.S.Kaleelul Rahman Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing)

M.Prem Kumar Vs the State Rep by Its

The Dean Vs M/s.Hindusthan Surgicals

The Maritime Education and Vs The Director General of

P.Arumugam, Vs The District Collector

M.Yuvaraj Vs Inspector of Police