Pt. Nawin Sharma vs Branch Manager Bank of India and Others

Invoking the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation, the petitioner has sought a direction to the Bank of India, represented through its Chairman and Managing Director, Zonal Manager, Chief Manager and Branch Manager, "to grant the housing loan in accordance with law to the prospective borrowers within the shortest possible time" to be prescribed by this Court.

The declaration which the petitioner has sought to make about his own bona fides and credentials is contained in paragraph 2A of the writ petition which reads as follows:

"That this being a Public Interest Litigation, in pursuance of Rule 1, sub-rule (3A) of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 the petitioners finds it relevant to present some facts regarding his own credibility. That the Petitioner is a law abiding vigilant citizen of the free India, and he feels his utmost duty and responsibility to highlight the shortcomings or pitfalls behind the fulfilment of constitutional obligations of providing Right to Shelter to the citizens of this country. That the Petitioner have no personal or private interest in this matter."

Paragraph 2A of the writ petition has been verified on the basis of legal advice received which the petitioner believes to be true.

Though the petition is ostensibly filed in public interest, the petitioner has not made due disclosure as required by sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which was inserted in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, AIR 2010 SC 2550 : (2010) 1 JT 329 : (2010) 1 SCALE 492 : (2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 1 SCC(L&S) 807 : (2010) 2 SCR 678 : (2010) 1 SLR 581 : (2010) 2 UJ 511 : (2011) AIRSCW 2486 : (2010) 6 Supreme 569 .

In any event, having heard the petitioner in person, on the merits of the plea, we proceed to deal with the writ petition. The petitioner has relied on an order dated 19 April 2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Tulja Ram v. Arun Mishra, Vice President, PNB Housing Finance Ltd. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14976 of 2001). The Division Bench disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:

"We have heard Sri S.P. SHARMA, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Tarun Varma, learned Advocate for the respondents.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the respondents authorities shall grant housing loan to the Petitioner in accordance with the scheme and the law within two months from the date of communication of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation."

The judgment does not lay down any precedent or principle of law. Next, a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief [Writ Petition (C) No. 2069 of 2009] delivered on 20 October 2009 is sought to be relied upon. The issue before the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court was the legality of an order passed by the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission directing that the second respondent, who was a borrower, was entitled to debt relief in respect of a housing loan. The issue was, hence, entirely different.

Basically, we are of the view that the reliefs which have been sought in the terms as prayed cannot be granted in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Clearly, it would not be open to the Court to issue a mandamus to the Bank, in terms as prayed, to grant housing loans to prospective borrowers ''within the shortest possible time'' in each case. Whether a loan should be granted, is a matter for evaluation by the Bank based on the creditworthiness of the borrower, the nature of the security offered and in terms of the priorities for lending. A general mandamus of this nature cannot be granted by the Court in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The plea of the petitioner is also based on a budgetary statement to the effect that by the time the Nation completes seventy-five years of Independence, every family will have a pakka house. This is a matter of policy, on which a writ cannot issue.

Hence we see no reason to entertain the writ petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.