JUDGMENT Honble R.A. Singh, J.—By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the rejection letter of respondents No. 1 and 2 dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure No. 9) in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Management, Assistant Salt Commissioner v. Secretary Central Salt Mazdoor Union, (2008) 11 SCC 278 and has further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents No. 1 to 4 to grant housing loan to the petitioner within the shortest possible time to be fixed by this Court as the matter of being identical nature has been decided by this Court in C.M.W.P. No. 14976 of 2001 which is binding upon the respondents in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 . 2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that this second writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for relief and cause of action given in the instant writ petition in consonance to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 and no other writ petition has been filed earlier before this Court or in any Court of law for the same relief and cause of action. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to grant housing loan as the relevant documents have already been filed before the respondents in obedience to the order dated 22.7.2009 passed by this Court in C.M.W.P. No. 33114 of 2009 (Annexure No. 3) and vis-a-vis the case of identical nature has already been decided by this Court in C.M.W.P. No. 14976 of 2001 (Annexure No. 1) which is binding upon the respondents in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 . 3. 3. The petitioner has further alleged in his writ petition that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has applied for a housing loan for purchase of plot and construction thereon before respondents No. 1 and 2 on 22.6.2009 (Annexure No. 2) and due to inordinate delay in the sanction of the housing loan, the petitioner approached this Court and filed first writ petition No. 33114 of 2009, in which an order was passed directing the petitioner to appear before the Branch Manager of the Bank alongwith certified copy of this order and submit the relevant documents as required by the bank for processing the application and after submission of the relevant documents the bank shall process the application and take a final decision on the application of the petitioner (Annexure No. 3). The petitioner then submitted the copy of order of this Court before the respondents through speed post on 29.7.2009 with a request to intimate about the relevant documents which were required by the bank for sanction of the loan proposal (Annexure No. 4). The respondents No. 1 and 2 visited the premises of the petitioner on 3.8.2009 and provided the copy of documents required to be submitted along with application (Annexure No. 2) for process of loan. The petitioner submitted the required documents on 4.8.2009 in the office of respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 6). The respondents No. 1 and 2 again raised some twenty six hypothetical objections in derogation to the order passed by this Court in the above writ petition with a malafide intention to create a stumbling block in the sanction of housing loan proposal (Annexure No. 7). The petitioner sent letter dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure No. 8) warning the respondents. The respondents No. 1 and 2 then sent letter dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure No. 9) to the petitioner under which his proposal for loan was declined. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed contempt petition No. 3656 of 2009, which was rejected by this Court on 14.10.2009 (Annexure No. 10) and then the petitioner filed this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner wanted to construct his house, one of basic need for survival of human beings, but the respondents rejected his application for loan. 4. 4. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed with this averment that in compliance of order dated 22.7.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 33114 of 2009 (Pt. Nawin Sharma v. Branch Manager, United Bank of India and others) the petitioner did not submit the required documents for processing his loan application and thus the bank had no other option but to take a final decision as per the direction of this Court in the above writ petition and declined to grant housing loan to the petitioner on the ground of non submitting the desired documents and non-cooperation. Since the petitioner himself failed to comply with the order of this Court passed in above writ petition, hence the second writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned is not concerned with the subject matter in dispute nor is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has also failed to mention his permanent residential address in his loan application and deliberately avoided to disclose the same with ulterior motive. The residential address of 60, Jaipur House Market, Agra, as mentioned by the petitioner in his loan application in fact is one shutter shop and same is not the residence of the petitioner and most of the times it has been found closed. The petitioner has also not disclosed the details of his immovable property worth Rs. 40 lacs as mentioned in his loan application nor has submitted the relevant documents in support of his application in order to show his financial capacity to repay the loan and in absence of the relevant documents, the petitioner has been found to be ineligible for sanction and disbursement of loan. A copy of order passed by this Court enclosed as Annexure No. 1 is not identical in any manner and the petitioner is not entitled for sanction of loan on the strength of the order passed in another writ petition in a different set of facts and circumstances. The application for housing loan moved by the petitioner with his wife has been found incomplete and the petitioner has also failed to submit the relevant documents as desired by the bank to substantiate the details mentioned in his loan application. The application for housing loan moved by the petitioner with his wife has been found incomplete and the petitioner has also failed to submit the relevant documents as desired by the bank to substantiate the details mentioned in his loan application. The petitioner desires the sanction of huge amount of housing loan without furnishing relevant documents for purpose of processing his application for loan and is constantly pressurising the bank for sanction of housing loan by engaging the bank in unnecessary and uncalled for litigation. The petitioner is himself guilty of disobedience to the order of this Court passed in earlier writ petition. The Senior Manager alogwith the Manager (Operation) of the bank visited the official place of the petitioner at 60, Jaipur House Market, Agra, as mentioned in the application and handed over a letter to him with details of the required relevant documents but he did not submit the said documents. The petitioner has neither disclosed his permanent residential address nor has verified his another immovable properties as mentioned in the loan application. After spot inspection of his address it was found desirable to require relevant necessary documents to be submitted by the petitioner in order to process his loan application, and to assess his capacity to repay huge amount of loan as the official address of the petitioner was one shutter shop which was found closed most of the times and the petitioner failed to disclose his residential address. Thus the bank could not take risk of sanction of a huge amount of housing loan to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs without taking security. The petitioner tried to mislead this Court and in this writ petition also he failed to mention his residential address. It has come to the knowledge of the bank that the petitioner has also taken loan from the Syndicate Bank, Dholpura Branch, Agra, which is also running highly irregular on account of default by the petitioner and thus this writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 5. We have heard the petitioner in person and Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent-bank as well as perused the record. 6. 5. We have heard the petitioner in person and Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent-bank as well as perused the record. 6. The petitioner in person has contended that in identical writ petition No. 14976 of 2001 (Shri Tulja Ram and others v. Shri Arun Mishra, Vice President, Punjab National Bank and others) the Division Bench of this Court has directed the Punjab National Bank to grant housing loan to the petitioner in accordance with the scheme and law within a period of two months. The copy of the order dated 19.4.2001 passed in above Writ Petition No. 14976 of 2001 (Annexure No. 1) is reproduced below : "We have heard Sri S.P.Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Verma, 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." 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-bank controverting the above contention has submitted that copy of above writ petition No. 14976 of 2001 has not been filed in order to establish that the facts of both writ petitions are identical. Moreover no proposition of law has been laid down by Division Bench of this Court in above writ petition No. 14976 of 2001 and thus this Court is not bound to follow any ratio and pass a similar order in the writ petition in hand. 8. The petitioner has relied on the principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 , wherein the proposition of law has been laid down which is reproduced below: "There have been several instances of different Benches of the High Courts not following the judgments/orders of coordinate and even larger Benches. In some cases, the High Courts have gone to the extent of ignoring the law laid down by the Supreme Court without any tangible reason. Likewise, there have been instances in which smaller Benches of the Supreme Court have either ignored or bypassed the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches including the Constitution Benches. In some cases, the High Courts have gone to the extent of ignoring the law laid down by the Supreme Court without any tangible reason. Likewise, there have been instances in which smaller Benches of the Supreme Court have either ignored or bypassed the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches including the Constitution Benches. These cases are illustrative of non-adherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is sine qua non for sustaining the system. It is distressing to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. Predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the Courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed. In our constitutional set up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law." 9. We have examined the copy of order passed by Division of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14976 of 2001 and found that the facts of writ petition has not been mentioned in this order and no principle of law has been laid down therein as Punjab National Bank has been directed to grant housing loan to the petitioner in accordance with scheme and law. The copy of Writ Petition No. 14976 of 2001 has also not been filed in order to enable us to compare the facts of both writ petitions. The copy of Scheme has also not been filed in the present writ petition, under which the respondents have to grant housing loan to the petitioner. Thus the copy of order as Annexure No. 1 does not help the petitioner. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33114 of 2009 has already passed the order, in compliance of which the petitioner has failed to file relevant documents as desired by the officers of United Bank of India. The order dated 22.7.2009 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33114 of 2009 is reproduced below : "In view of the facts of the present case, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending and calling for counter affidavit. Petitioner’s application having been received by the Bank, petitioner may appear before the Branch Manager alongwith the certified copy of this order and submit the relevant documents as required by the Bank for processing the application and after submission of the relevant documents Bank shall process the application and take a final decision on the application of the petitioner. Bank shall take appropriate steps on the application of the petitioner within a period of six weeks. Bank shall take appropriate steps on the application of the petitioner within a period of six weeks. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner and it is for the Bank to consider all aspects of the matter and shall take appropriate decision. With the above observation, writ petition stands disposed of." 10. In view of above order the petitioner was directed to appear before the Branch Manager alongwith certified copy of this order dated 22.7.2009 and submit relevant documents as required by the Bank for processing the loan application, and after submission of relevant documents, bank would have to process application and take a final decision on the application of the petitioner. No entitlement of the petitioner for loan was expressed in the order and it was for the bank to consider all aspects of the matter and take appropriate decision. The officers of the bank visited the place of the petitioner and thought it proper to ask the petitioner to submit twenty six relevant documents in order to know the capacity of the petitioner to repay huge amount of loan, but the petitioner failed to appear before the branch manager and submit required twenty six documents in the bank within the period specified and thus the bank passed the impugned order declining the petitioner for sanction of housing loan. 11. A perusal on record would go to show that the petitioner mentioned his residential address as 60, Jaipur House Market, Agra. It was admittedly not a residential house but a shutter shop which was found closed most of the times as disclosed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The petitioner also failed to disclose his residential address in this petition and also did not mention the same even in his rejoinder affidavit. The respondents thus rightly rejected the proposal of the petitioner for loan in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The respondents in para 11 at page 13 of counter affidavit specifically mentioned as below: "It has further come to the knowledge of the deponent that the petitioner has also take loan from the Syndicate Bank, Dholpura Branch, Agra, which is also running highly irregular on account of default by the petitioner." 13. 12. The respondents in para 11 at page 13 of counter affidavit specifically mentioned as below: "It has further come to the knowledge of the deponent that the petitioner has also take loan from the Syndicate Bank, Dholpura Branch, Agra, which is also running highly irregular on account of default by the petitioner." 13. The petitioner in para 11 at page 13 of the rejoinder stated as below : "This particular contention of the respondent is in derogation to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1191-94 of 2005 in Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others decided on 7th August, 2009, as they have not adduced any evidence in relation to their statements." 14. Thus the petitioner deliberately avoided to reply of above mentioned para 11 at page 13 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank, meaning thereby it would be presumed that the petitioner admitted this fact that he took loan from Syndicate Bank, Dholpura Branch, Agra, which became highly irregular on account of default of the petitioner, because the petitioner failed to deny this fact in para 11 of his rejoinder affidavit. Under these circumstances, the respondent-bank rightly declined the proposal of the petitioner for loan in view of the fact that the petitioner concealed this fact that he had taken loan from Syndicate Bank, Dholpura Branch, Agra, which became highly irregular on account of non-payment. 15. It is the discretion of the bank to grant loan to eligible person after taking into consideration the facts as to whether he would be able to repay the same and in case the bank finds that the applicant would not be in a position to pay loan and his application has been moved with malafide intention and ulterior motive to defraud the bank, the bank would be at liberty to reject the application for loan, because the bank is the custodian of public money and it is the duty and responsibility of bank officers to keep the money of public secured. 16. The principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 , has no application to the present case and the facts of both cases are quite different. 16. The principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 , has no application to the present case and the facts of both cases are quite different. It has been observed in above case that once a direction issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of the rule of law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. Upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. In the above case the Court has further observed that from the reading of the order of the appellant Board, it is obvious that in spite of clear direction issued by a competent Court, no payment was made and an express order was passed to the effect that the writ petitioner would not be entitled to pay as he had not worked. The respondent, therefore, had legitimate grievance against such direction. The facts of the present case are quite different from the facts of above case and the principle laid down in this regard does not apply to the present case. 17. The petitioner has also relied on Management, Assistant Salt Commissioner v. Secretary, Central Salt Mazdoor Union, (2008) 11 SCC 278 , in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed the provision of labour law relating to casual labour and held that the Central Government cannot be held to be bound by an act of one of its officers. In terms of the Rules, the job of a licensee could be taken over directly under Rule and not beyond the same. When a statutory action is performed, it must be done in the manner laid down under statute or not at all. All actions of the statutory authorities must be confined within the four corners of the statute. In terms of the Rules, the job of a licensee could be taken over directly under Rule and not beyond the same. When a statutory action is performed, it must be done in the manner laid down under statute or not at all. All actions of the statutory authorities must be confined within the four corners of the statute. If the appellant was not authorised under the statute to take recourse to Rule 130 of the Rules for the purpose of engaging salt mazdoors jointly on behalf of all licensees, the said action itself must be h eld to be a nullity. In such a situation and particularly in view of the fact that in making recruitment of respondents, the quality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 16 were not complied with, the respondents cannot derive any benefit therefrom. 18. The facts of the above cases are quite different from the facts of the present case, because in the present case the petitioner has sought a relief for direction to the respondents to grant loan as prayed for. Under these circumstances the above cases are irrelevant so far as the present case is concerned. The respondents have been entrusted with public money and they are not expected to misappropriate the same or to disburse the said amount under any loan scheme to a person who is not eligible or incapable to repay the same. Moreover the petitioner has got no statutory right to be granted loan in question and it is satisfaction of the bank as to whether the loan can be granted to the petitioner and he is capable to repay the same. 19. The public money entrusted to the bank’s cannot be permitted to be misutilised. Respondent bank is bound by the norms set up for the purposes of grant of loan. No writ or direction can be issued as prayed for to grant loan if the bank is not satisfied with the credit worthiness of the petitioner. 20. In view of the above discussions, the respondents have rightly refused to concede the proposal of the petitioner for loan especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to disclose his residential address either in the papers produced for loan or in this writ petition. He has also failed to furnish the documents as required by the respondents in order to grant loan to him. He has also failed to furnish the documents as required by the respondents in order to grant loan to him. In his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has also failed to deny the allegations made in para 11 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been mentioned specifically that the petitioner has taken loan from Syndicate Bank, Dholpura Branch, Agra, which is also running highly irregular on account of default of the petitioner. 21. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to allow this writ petition, which is devoid of merits and based on imaginary grounds. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. But no order as to costs. ————