Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3410 (MAD)

Jegadeesan v. Divisional Manager Canara Bank

2018-10-01

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, T.KRISHNAVALLI

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Challenging the order, dated 03.03.2017 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 12023 of 2010, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner is the borrower from the first respondent-Bank and the borrowal was in the year 1996. The appellant/writ petitioner was seeking the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, which was rejected by the first respondent-Bank on the ground that the said scheme envisages the benefits to the loans granted between 31.03.1997 and 31.03.2007. 3. Challenging the same, W.P. (MD) No. 12023 of 2010 was filed, wherein it was contended by the appellant/writ petitioner that one Meera Mohideen, who was also a borrower in the year 1996, was extended the benefit of the said Waiver Scheme by the first respondent-Bank. Therefore, he should also be given such benefit. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted by the first respondent-Bank that the Waiver Scheme given to the said Meera Mohideen was on the mistake committed by the then Branch Manager, who had also involved in various other misconducts. In view of the mistake committed by the Manager, he was imposed with a punishment of compulsory retirement from service in the disciplinary proceedings taken by the first respondent-Bank. 5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant/ writ petitioner cannot claim equality on the mistake committed by one of the employees of the Bank. 6. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 8. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner is seeking the extension of same benefit as given in the case of Meera Mohideen claiming equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. As stated earlier, the appellant/writ petitioner had borrowed loan in the year 1996, the scheme is inapplicable to the appellant/writ petitioner and the extension of the benefits to the said Meera Mohideen itself was by mistake and the officer himself has suffered punishment. If an illegality has been committed to benefit someone, the others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to commit the same illegality or irregularity to extend the benefit to them. If an illegality has been committed to benefit someone, the others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to commit the same illegality or irregularity to extend the benefit to them. Equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept and the same cannot be sought to be enforced in a negative manner. Unless the claim of waiver sought for by the appellant/writ petitioner is just and legal and that the same is denied to him, he cannot claim discrimination. Hence, his claim was rejected by the Bank and the learned Single Judge had also rightly dismissed the claim made by the appellant/writ petitioner and the same does not warrant any interference. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.