Judgment : By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks disbursement of housing loan in his favour by the respondents. The petitioner relies upon a letter of sanction dated 18.11.2010 whereunder the respondents have conveyed their “in principle” approval for grant of housing loan of Rs.18,75,000/- on the rate of interest as mentioned therein. The said loan was repayable with equated monthly installment (EMI) of Rs.17,175/- for a period of twenty years. The terms and conditions and the list of documents required by the respondents were enclosed to the letter of sanction. The petitioner states that based on the sanction letter, he has identified the flat, which was under construction and that his developer and vendor has settled other terms and conditions and obtained a sale deed dated 31.12.2010, which was registered as document No.12916/2010. The petitioner states that the said sale deed was executed by the vendor on the assurance of the petitioner as well as on the basis of the xerox copy of the cheque (account payee) issued by the first respondent bearing No.907350 dated 31.12.2010 drawn on HDFC bank in favour of the vendor of the petitioner for Rs.9,37,000/-. The petitioner states that when he had produced the sale deed before the respondent-corporation, they insisted that the details of the cheque are required to be mentioned in the sale deed whereupon the petitioner obtained a rectification deed dated 25.01.2011 registered as document No.838/2011 duly mentioning the details of the said cheque. However, the cheque as such was not released by the respondents apart from the other balance component of the sanctioned loan. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court by this writ petition seeking a mandamus against the respondent-corporation to release the said cheque for Rs.9,37,000/-. 2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 06.09.2011 and the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit wherein they admitted that they were prima facie satisfied with the loan proposal and issued sanction letter accordingly and were also prepared to release the said cheque for Rs.9,37,000/- xerox copy of which was given to the petitioner to enable him to obtain sale deed. This Court ordered notice before admission on 06.09.2011 and the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit wherein they admitted that they were prima facie satisfied with the loan proposal and issued sanction letter accordingly and were also prepared to release the said cheque for Rs.9,37,000/- xerox copy of which was given to the petitioner to enable him to obtain sale deed. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that on inspection, the officials of the respondents found a notice pasted on the site issued by the City Civil Court, Ranga Reddy relating to O.S.No.1190 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and they also found that no construction activity had taken place on the site. Hence, doubting the genuineness of the sale transaction proposed by the petitioner neither the initial payment of sanctioned loan nor the balance payment of sanctioned loan was released. The respondent-corporation also admits that they have inadvertently encashed the EMI payable by the petitioner for the first month i.e., Rs.17,175/- but on realising that the withholding of the loan was not informed to the officials receiving the EMI, the respondents have immediately arranged RTGS transfer of a sum of Rs.23,837/- in favour of the petitioner to his account towards refund of EMI plus interest and processing fee. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents’ state that having not satisfied with the proposal for loan, the same was not processed thereafter. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 4. It is apparent from the counter-affidavit that the respondents are doubting the legal title as well as the genuineness of the transaction and they have thereafter not processed the proposal for loan any further. While it is true that the respondents have given “in principle” approval but the disbursement of loan was withheld on account of the doubts entertained by them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already apprised the respondents that the litigation referred to in the notice is no more subsisting and the compromise decree in the said suit was already furnished to the respondents. So far as the other doubt relating to construction is concerned, learned counsel states that the loan itself was for a semi finished flat which is quite common and nothing unusual can be stated about the same. 6. So far as the other doubt relating to construction is concerned, learned counsel states that the loan itself was for a semi finished flat which is quite common and nothing unusual can be stated about the same. 6. While the petitioner’s contentions on genuineness of his claim may be justified, it is a matter entirely for the respondents to consider as to the feasibility for advancing the housing loan. Advancing of housing loans to the customers by the respondents is a commercial decision of the respondents, which they have to take in accordance with the norms settled by the policy of the respondent-corporation. I am unable to appreciate as to how, process of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked for the purpose of compelling the respondents to advance housing loan to the petitioner notwithstanding the doubts on that proposal expressed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Thus, this being a commercial transaction of advancing loan, which is undertaken by the respondent-corporation as a business for its customers, the satisfaction of the respondents on commercial terms and feasibility of the proposal, cannot be substituted by orders of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In that view of the matter, even assuming that the petitioner’s claim and entitlement as alleged is genuine, process of this Court cannot be pressed for compelling the respondents to advance the housing loan to the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, dismissal of this writ petition does not preclude the petitioner from approaching any other financial institution for assistance, if he so desires.