Dismissed¶36

Jayakumar v. The Regional Manager

Madras HC6 Apr 2026WP/3003/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition dismissed; Bank of India loan application rejection upheld; CIBIL report chronic defaulter; default on prior Dairy Loan Rs.1,00,000 and Vehicle Loan; loan application Rs.7,51,896 through Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation for digital photo studio, Krishnagiri; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; Scheduled Caste special case loan sanction refused; impugned letter dated 05.03.2021 Ref.No.ALP ADV 2020-21:20; W.P.No.3003 of 2022; Krishnan Ramasamy J.; decided 06-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no merit in the Petitioner's case and was not inclined to allow the Writ Petition, accepting the position urged by counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 that the CIBIL report showed the Petitioner to be a chronic defaulter ineligible for the loan under the Bank's norms. ¶35

Jayakumar Vs The Regional Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.3003 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.3003 of 2022

¶7

Jayakumar

¶8

S/o.Govindasamy, No.2/197, J.J.Nagar, Alapatti Village and Post, Krishnagiri Taluk and District, Pin - 635 122.

¶9

..Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Regional Manager, Bank of India, No.344, S M E City Coimbatore, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore.

¶12

The Manager, Bank of India, Alapatti Branch, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

¶13

The District Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Ref.No.ALP ADV 2020-21:20 dated 05.03.2021 on the file of 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner loan application on humane consideration as a special case for schedule caste and to sanction Rs.5 Lakhs to secure ends of justice.

¶16

__________ Page1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.3003 of 2022

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents – 1 & 2 : Mr.F.B.Benjamin George For Respondent – 3 : No Appearance

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The relief sought in this Writ Petition is to call for the records pertaining to the Letter dated 05.03.2021 bearing Ref.No.ALP ADV 2020-21:20 on the file 2^nd Respondent and quash the same and to direct the 1^st Respondent to consider the Petitioner’s loan application as a special case for Scheduled Caste and sanction a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as loan to Petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that Petitioner is a physically challenged person belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The Petitioner has a land measuring to an extent of 50 cents situated at Alapatti Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, but, he has no income to eke out his livelihood. The Petitioner had submitted an online application seeking a loan to the tune of Rs.7,51,896/- through Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation for establishing a digital photo studio in Alapatti Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The District Manager of 3^rd Respondent Corporation had forwarded the Petitioner’s loan application to 2^nd Respondent for sanctioning of loan amount sought by the Petitioner, but, 2^nd Respondent has rejected the Petitioner’s loan application vide Letter dated

¶23

Page2 of 6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.3003 of 2022

¶26

05.03.2021 bearing Ref.No.ALP ADV 2020-21:20. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra .

¶27

The learned counsel appeared on behalf of Respondents 1 & 2 submitted that Petitioner had previously availed a Dairy Loan to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and he defaulted in repaying the same. On 02.02.2021, in order to evaluate the creditworthiness of Petitioner, 2^nd Respondent had generated a CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited) Report. The said CIBIL Report showed that apart from the Dairy Loan, Petitioner had availed a Vehicle Loan and he defaulted in repaying the same. The CIBIL Report clearly demonstrates that the Petitioner is a chronic defaulter. Therefore, 2^nd Respondent has rejected the Petitioner’s loan application.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner and the learned counsel for Respondents 1 & 2.

¶29

In the present case, Petitioner had applied for a loan to the tune of Rs.7,51,896/- through Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation for establishing a digital photo studio in Alapatti Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, but, his loan application was rejected by the 2^nd Respondent. Hence, Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

¶30

Page3 of 6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.3003 of 2022

¶33

The District Manager of 3^rd Respondent Corporation had forwarded the Petitioner’s loan application to 2^nd Respondent. After receiving the said loan application, in order to know the past credit history of Petitioner, 2^nd Respondent had generated a CIBIL Report. The said CIBIL Report revealed that Petitioner had already availed a Vehicle Loan and Dairy Loan and he defaulted in repaying the said loans. Therefore, 2^nd Respondent has rejected the Petitioner’s loan application by stating that as per the norms of the Bank, Petitioner is not eligible for the loan sought by him.

¶34

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard

¶35

to the submissions made by the learned counsel for Respondents 1 & 2, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the case of Petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow this Writ Petition.

¶36