Kalesh K vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 10585 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

     MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                      WP(C).No.22062 OF 2020(G)


PETITIONER:

               KALESH K,
               AGED 53 YEARS,
               S/O KUMARAN,
               KAVYASREE,
               KADAPPAKADA,
               KOLLAM-691 008.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.SUJIN
               SMT.NITA.N.S.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        UNION OF INDIA,
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
               MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
               GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
               NORTH BLOCK,
               NEW DELHI-110 001.

      2        SECRETARY ,
               MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
               GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
               NORTH BLOCK,
               NEW DELHI-110 001.

      3        THE GOVERNOR, R.B.I,
               CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
               18TH FLOOR,
               SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
               MUMBAI-440 001.

      4        HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,
               REGISTERED OFFICE AT RADHIKA,
               2ND FLOOR, LAW GARDEN ROAD,
               NAVARANGPURA, AHAMEDABAD-380 009.
               BRANCH MANAGER,
               BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               "SPRING", NEW TC NO.16/659(6),
               1ST FLOOR, EDAPAZHANJI,
               THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-682 035.
 WP(C)Nos.22062/2020

                               2




             R1-2 BY SRI.M.N.MANMADAN, CGC
             R1-2 BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
             R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)Nos.22062/2020

                                   3




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of March, 2021

The petitioner is aggrieved by the reduced

amount of financial assistance under the ECLG Scheme

given to him by the 4th respondent-HDB Financial Services

Limited.

2. The petitioner states that he is engaged in the

business of dry washing of used clothes. Under the

Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme, he is entitled

up to Rs.56 lakhs as financial assistance. The petitioner

made application for the said Rs.56 lakhs towards financial

assistance. However, the 4th respondent sanctioned only

Rs.30 lakhs. It is aggrieved by the said reduced sanction of

amount, that the petitioner is before this Court. WP(C)Nos.22062/2020

3. The 4th respondent appeared through Standing

Counsel and opposed the writ petition vehemently.

According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner has been

defaulting in payment of EMI consistently. His repayment

track record is abysmal. The 4th respondent has a

discretion in the matter of grant of financial assistance

under the ECLG Scheme.

4. The learned Standing Counsel further argued

that the security provided by the petitioner to the existing

loan is inadequate. In such circumstances, if the petitioner

is granted more loan, it would be at the peril of the bank.

For that reason also more amount cannot be sanctioned to

the petitioner.

5. The learned Standing Counsel further pointed out

that the 4th respondent has sanctioned Rs.30 lakhs under

the ECLG Scheme. The petitioner has accepted the said

amount. The petitioner has approached this Court with the WP(C)Nos.22062/2020

writ petition only after two months of sanctioning the said

amount. After accepting the loan sanctioned by the 4 th

respondent, the petitioner is estopped from approaching this

Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents.

7. Going through the Ext.P1 Scheme, it is evident

that the MLIs have discretions in extending the financial

assistance under the Scheme. However, such discretion

should be exercised reasonably.

8. In the present case one of the defence of the 4 th

respondent is that the petitioner has been consistently

defaulting in payment of EMI's. At the same time it has to

be noted that the account has not been declared as NPA

and the outstanding EMI's of the petitioner is not for a

period of more than 60 days as stipulated in the Ext.P1 WP(C)Nos.22062/2020

Scheme. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the

reduced sanctioning of financial assistance under the

Scheme by the 4th respondent is not justified.

9. Similarly for extension of financial assistance

under the Scheme, no separate security is to be demanded.

When that be the position, it will be improper to deny the

benefit of Ext.P1 Scheme at a desired level, on the ground

that the security provided by the petitioner is inadequate.

The decision of the 4th respondent therefore cannot stand

the scrutiny of law.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed

of directing the 4th respondent to reconsider the application

of the petitioner for Rs.56 lakhs financial assistance and

take a decision in the matter at the earliest, at any rate

before the expiry of the period of Scheme.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR WP(C)Nos.22062/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EMERGENCY CREDIT LINE GUARANTEE SCHEME

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.6.2020 TO THE RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK ON 21.7.2020

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN VELANKANI INFORMATIONS SYSTEMS LIMITED VS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI DATED 8.7.2020(WP.6775 OF 2020)

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT