JITENDRA RASIKLAL THAKER v. BANK OF INDIA — 1992 DIGILAW 108 (GUJ)

K. G. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who claims to be an educated unemployed young man applied to respondent No. 1 Bank of India Gandhidham Kachchh Branch on 27/08/1987 for a loan to purchase a motor truck. The Gandhidham branch of respondent No. 1 sent the papers to the Regional Office of the bank. At short intervals the petitioner went on addressing letters to Gandhidham branch the Regional Office and to other quarters making allegations against the officers of Gandhidham branch of the respondent bank that his application for loan was not processed promptly and the loan was not sanctioned to him promptly. Within about a month of his first application he approached Smt. Ushabehn Thakker Member of Parliament from his Constituency as also Shri Janardan Poojari the Finance Minister for State at the Centre and repeated his complaint against the Branch Manager of Gandhidham Branch of the respondent-bank. The Regional Office of the respondent-bank deputed its officers to investigate the case of the petitioner with a view to finding out if the proposal of purchasing a truck which the petitioner had came with was economically viable. Within a short time of his application the petitioner went on writing letters to the officers of the respondent-bank asking those officers to credit into his account his salary of Rs. 2 100 per month on the ground that as his request for loan was not sanctioned promptly he remained unemployed and therefore the respondent-bank was bound to pay him salary of Rs. 2 100 per month. There was a long drawn of correspondence. between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent-bank on the other and ultimately the respondent-bank by its letter dated 10/02/1988 said that the petitioner had not been able to convince the Manager Gandhidham branch of the respondent-bank about the economic viability of the proposal of the business put up by the petitioner. Therefore the respondent-bank had no other option but to decline the petitioners application for loan. With this statement the respondent-bank informed the petitioner that the matter is treated to have been closed. And the respondent-bank expressed its inability to entertain any further communication with the petitioner on the matter. ( 2 ) THE petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the decision of the respondent bank not to sanction the loan to him. And the respondent-bank expressed its inability to entertain any further communication with the petitioner on the matter. ( 2 ) THE petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the decision of the respondent bank not to sanction the loan to him. ( 3 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that the decision of the bank not to sanction the loan to him is tainted with mala fides. The only argument of Mr. Y. S. Mankad Learned Advocate for the petitioner is the decision is arbitrary and is therefore required to be quashed. After having heard Mr. Mankad at length I see no substance in the argument. ( 4 ) THE papers produced on the record clearly shows that the officers of the bank had all throughout been sympathetic to the petitioner. But the petitioner right from the beginning adopted a cantankerous and captious attitude. The petitioners first letter of application to the bank is Annexure `a dated 24/07/1987. In that application the petitioner has not indicated the make of the truck he intended to purchase he has not indicated the cost of the truck he has not indicated the amount of the loan that he needed. That application or the letter was to say the least incomplete in many a detail. Still however his application was forwarded by the Manager Gandhidham branch of the respondent-bank to the Regional Office of the bank and in the very nature of things the proceeding of such an incomplete application would take some time. Within about a month of his first application the petitioner addressed another letter Annexure `b dated 27/08/1987 to the Manager Gandhidham branch of the respondent-bank. Therein he requested the Manager of the Gandhidham Branch to inform him the date and time at which he should contact the Manager and deposit the margin money. In the application he said that he wanted the loan under 20-Point Programme for purchase of the truck. He sent a copy of that letter to the Zonal Manager of the respondent-bank at Ahmedabad and in the endorsement below that copy he made a grievance of the fact that though one month had passed no decision on his application was taken. He sent a copy of that letter to the Zonal Manager of the respondent-bank at Ahmedabad and in the endorsement below that copy he made a grievance of the fact that though one month had passed no decision on his application was taken. On the next day on 28/08/1987 the petitioner addressed a letter to Shri Janardan Poojari the Minister for State in Finance Ministry and made a grievance of the fact that though one month had elapsed since making of the application he was not granted the loan. He endorsed a copy of that letter to Smt. Ushabehn Thakker Member of Parliament from his Constituency. On 10/09/1987 the Manager Gandhidham Branch of the respondent-bank informed the petitioner that his case was referred to the higher authorities and the Manager requested the petitioner to bear with him in the mean while. On 12/09/1987 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Regional Manager of the bank making innuendoes therein against the Branch Manager of Gandhidham Branch. On 24/09/1987 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Reserve Bank of India making grievance of the fact that his loan application was not sanctioned. It is not necessary for me to refer to all the correspondence produced on the record. Suffice it to say that at short intervals the petitioner has sent a number of letters to various authorities making grievance of the fact that his application for loan has not been sanctioned. It is interesting to note that the Regional Office of the respondent-bank on 5/10/1987 by Annexure `k to the petition wrote to the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for the loan under 20-Point Programme but loan to road Transport operators was not covered under the scheme of financing under 20-Point Programme. The Regional Office by that letter also informed the petitioner that none-the- less the petitioner may apply for a loan under the banks scheme of financing to road transport operators and such a request if made by the petitioner would be considered by the bank strictly on merits of the case if found viable. It appears that thereafter the petitioner on 17/10/1987 wrote a letter to the Regional Office of the respondent-bank stating that the Branch Manager of Gandhidham branch had misled the Regional Office by saying that the petitioner had made an application for loan under 20-Point Programme. It appears that thereafter the petitioner on 17/10/1987 wrote a letter to the Regional Office of the respondent-bank stating that the Branch Manager of Gandhidham branch had misled the Regional Office by saying that the petitioner had made an application for loan under 20-Point Programme. It may be noticed that the earlier letters addressed by the petitioner to the Branch Manager of Gandhidham branch of the respondent-bank clearly stated that the petitioner wanted loan under 20 Programme. As a loan to Road Transport Operators was not covered under the 20-Point Programme obviously the bank would not have been able to sanction the application for loan made by the petitioner. Still however the petitioner stated to the Regional Office that the Branch Manager of Gandhidham branch of the respondent-bank had misled the Regional Office by stating that the petitioner had applied for a loan under 20-Point Programme. This was certainly a mis-statement made by the petitioner to the Regional Office of the respondent bank. ( 5 ) THAT the Officers of the respondent bank were quite cooperative and symapthetic to the petitioner would again be clear from the letter Annexure `o dated 9/11/1987 addressed by the Regional Office of the bank to the petitioner. In that letter the Regional Office informed the petitioner that the Gandhidham branch of the respondent-bank had sent to the petitioner the prescribed loan application form on 15/10/1987 for necessary compliance and submission to them in order to consider his case on merits. However there was no response from the petitioners side. Therefore the Gandhidham branch of the respondent-bank once again reminded the petitioner on 21/10/1987 and the Branch Manager again telephoned to the petitioner on 29/10/1987 with a request to call on them but the petitioner did not go to the Branch. In that letter the Regional Office also requested the petitioner to visit the branch and meet the Manager directly. In that letter the Regional Office also pointed out that the petitioner had applied for the loan by way of letter addressed to the Branch Manager and that letter did not reveal information like guarantors margin money scope of the business for the proposed activity etc. In that letter the Regional Office also pointed out that the petitioner had applied for the loan by way of letter addressed to the Branch Manager and that letter did not reveal information like guarantors margin money scope of the business for the proposed activity etc. In that letter the Regional Office also stated that there was stiff competition in the line of transport business and even so the Regional Office requested the petitioner to give them the details of the petitioners business contacts and they also requested the petitioner to explain them as to how the petitioner could ensure regular flow of business. In that letter the Regional Office also stated that the petitioner had applied for loan only for the chasis and not for the body of the truck. The Regional Office therefore called upon the petitioner to clarify to the Branch as to how the petitioner proposed to meet such costs and source of finance. ( 6 ) INSTEAD of giving the details which were asked by the bank the petitioner went on writing lengthy and cantankerous letters to the Regional Office of the respondent-bank. He gave names of certain persons from whom he expected to get transport business if he could buy a truck on getting a loan from the bank. The Officers of the respondent-bank made inquiries and found that the proposals of the petitioner about the viability of the business was absolutely unsound. The officers of the bank also found on inquiries that the petitioner had made mis-statements on material points. The respondent-bank therefore by the letter dated 18/12/1987 stated to the petitioner that in order to examine the petitioners grievance thoroughly the Senior Officials of the respondent-bank were deputed from the Regional Office for personal discussions with the petitioner at Gandhidham on 10/12/1987 and the petitioner had also visited the Regional Office of the respondent-bank on 14/12/1987 in that regard. The respondent-bank in that letter stated that upon examining of the relevant facts they were of the view that the petitioner would not be in a position to procure business on continuous basis to run his business profitably and to enable him to repay the banks dues. Therefore then the respondent-bank was unable to consider the petitioners request. The respondent-bank in that letter stated that upon examining of the relevant facts they were of the view that the petitioner would not be in a position to procure business on continuous basis to run his business profitably and to enable him to repay the banks dues. Therefore then the respondent-bank was unable to consider the petitioners request. In that letter the respondent-bank stated that however when the petitioner could satisfy the bank about firm business prospects he may approach Gandhidham branch in that regard and explain the viability of the business proposal to the satisfaction of the branch at which time the Regional Office would consider his proposal upon merits. ( 7 ) THUS it is clear that all throughout the officers of the respondent-bank had shown a positive sympathetic and cooperative approach to the petitioner but the petitioner on the contrary went on finding faults with the Branch Manager of the Gandhidham branch of the respondent-bank. He went on making complaints to various quarters about the loan having not been sanctioned to him. He conveniently ignored that the references he had given were wholly unsound. The guarantors that he proposed were also not financially sound. The office of the respondent-bank therefore upon objective assessment of the material placed before them decided that the proposal made by the petitioner was not a viable proposal and therefore decided not to sanction loan to the petitioner. That decision in the facts and circumstances of the case can never be faulted as an arbitrary decision. ( 8 ) IT may be mentioned here that right from 15/10/1987 the petitioner started sending letters to the respondent bank claiming salary at the rate of Rs. 2 100 per month on the ground that as the loan was not sanctioned promptly he remained unemployed and therefore the bank was liable to pay him salary at the rate of Rs. 2 100 per month. To say the least this shows the mental frame of the petitioner. The matter does not end here. In order to assert that if the loan is granted to him he would buy a truck and would get business in transport operations the petitioner stated to the respondent-bank that the firm of M/s. Kutch Packaging had assured him some continuous business in transport operations. In order to verify that statement the officers of the bank visited the firm of M/s. Kutch Packaging. In order to verify that statement the officers of the bank visited the firm of M/s. Kutch Packaging. When the petitioner came to know this fact he represented to the bank that as the bank officers had visited the firm of M/s. Kutch Packaging wife of the partner of that firm was contemplating to file a complaint against the officers of the bank but the petitioner intervened and dissuaded the wife of the partner of that firm from filing a complaint. These facts would show that the petitioner wanted to pressurise the bank officers into accepting his request without verification of the facts stated by him. ( 9 ) ON the record of the case there is an affidavit-in-reply filed by D. S. Shenoy. In that affidavit-in-reply the deponent has pointed out various mis-representations and false statements made by the petitioner to the respondent-bank with a view to getting the loan. I need not dwell at length upon those statements for it is clear to me that the petitioner had no case for getting the loan and yet he wanted to pressurise the respondent-bank for getting the loan and for that purpose he made baseless allegations against the Branch Manager of the Gandhidham Branch as also against the Regional Office of the bank. His attitude to say the least was cantankerous and captious. In the affidavit-in-reply amongst other things this attitude of the petitioner has also been pointed out as a factor which the bank as a prudent business organisation would be required to take into account. If before the loan was sanctioned to him the petitioner displayed such a conduct officers of the bank would certainly feel wary about the petitioner for after the sanction of the loan they would have to monitor the loan and the repayment thereof and they would justifiably think that the petitioner would be a difficult person to handle in the matter of obtaining repayment of the loan. Of course this is one of the aspects which have weighed with the officers of the respondent-bank in not granting the loan to the petitioner. In the affidavit-in-reply various other aspects which have gone in the decision not to sanction the loan to the petitioner have been indicated. Of course this is one of the aspects which have weighed with the officers of the respondent-bank in not granting the loan to the petitioner. In the affidavit-in-reply various other aspects which have gone in the decision not to sanction the loan to the petitioner have been indicated. ( 10 ) IF the officers of the bank have upon objective facts taken a decision not to sanction loan to the petitioner I think in a writ jurisdiction the Court cannot substitute its decision for the decision of the officers of the bank. In a way on a question whether loan should or should not be sanctioned to the petitioner the bank officers are the expert body. It is the bank officers who have to consider the various pros and cons of the proposal for loan and take a decision. It would not be for the Court to substitute its decision for the decision of the bank officers. May be sitting in the chair of the bank officer I might have been persuaded to take a different decision but that would be no ground for interfering with the decision of the bank officer especially when the Court has asked to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The decision of the bank not to grant loan to the petitioner has not at all been shown to be in any manner arbitrary. As said above it is not the case of the petitioner that that decision is tainted with any mala fides. Under these circumstances the petitioner cannot succeed in this writ petition. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed. The rule is discharged with no orders as to costs. Rule discharged. .