JUDGMENT : SATYA POOT MEHROTRA and RAJESH CHANDRA, J. – The petitioners have filed the present writ petition making the following reliefs "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for record and quash the impugned order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 Branch Manager contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.2 Branch Manager to sanction the housing loan of Rs. 10 lacs to the petitioners institution completing necessary formalities in accordance with guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India within a stipulated period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. III. Any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioners which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners." 2. From the averments made in the writ petition. It transpires that Smt. Abha Singh; wife of the petitioner No.2 filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16915 of 2009 before this Court. Another writ petition being Civil Misc: Writ Petition No. 16917 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner No. 1. 3. By the separate order each dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 8 respectively), the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of. 4. It was, inter alia, mentioned in' the said orders that the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India "may not issue a mandamus commanding the respondents bank to provide the over draft limit. It is for the bank to take appropriate decision in this respect". 5. It may be mentioned that the petitioners had submitted in the aforesaid writ petitions that application for over draft limit were not being sanctioned by the Bank, namely, Central Bank of India. 6. It further transpires from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner No. 2 Janardan Singh, thereafter, submitted an application dated 23.5.2009 reiterating the prayer made for sanction of over draft limit. 7. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. 8. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for sanction of over draft limit was rejected by the respondent No.2-Central Bank of India. 9. 7. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. 8. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for sanction of over draft limit was rejected by the respondent No.2-Central Bank of India. 9. It has, inter alia been mentioned in the said order dated 4.6.2010 that the over draft limit could not be given for construction of house/building. 10. It has further been mentioned in the said order dated 4.6.2010 that for, construction of house/building, the term loan is given after fixing monthly instalments thereof. 11. The petitioners have, thereafter, filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 12. We have heard Sri K K Mani, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish Pandey holding brief, for Sri U.K Saxena, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and perused the record. 13. It is submitted by Sri KK Mani, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2-Central Bank of India has committed illegality in rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of Over Draft Limit for construction of house/building. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by Sri K.K. Mani, learned Counsel for the petitioners, we find ourselves unable to accept the same. Nothing has been brought to show that the rejection of prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for sanction of Over Draft Limit for construction of house/building is not correct and the order has been passed in violation of any rule or regulation. 15. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the etitioners lacks merits, and the saI11e is liable to be dismissed. 16. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Petition Dismissed.