ORDER : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. The petitioner is stuck between Scylla and Charybdis or between the devil and the deep blue sea. 2. The petitioner before this Court is a borrower from the respondent-Bank, who is seeking relief against a nationalized Bank. Normally a writ would not have been entertained against the Bank in a loan transaction. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where both inaction on the part of the respondent bank and failure to pay the loan amount are alleged, this Court has taken up the matter for hearing. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank. 4. The petitioner has established a fly ash brick industry. He started a business under MSME Scheme. He applied for a loan to the respondent-Bank. The sanctioned limit was Rs. 95,00,000/-. Out of this Rs. 95,00,000/- a sum of Rs. 68.22 lakhs was released to the petitioner towards working capital and a part of the term loan. Apart from executing the loan documents as security for the said loan, petitioner has mortgaged his property to the hilt. Value of the said property, as mentioned in the loan application, is Rs. 98.28 lakhs. The valuation was done on 12.5.2018. After July, 2018 as the balance loan amount was not being released the petitioner made representations also but the respondent-Bank did not release the loan. Therefore, the writ is filed seeking a direction to release the balance amount of Rs. 41.40 lakhs as otherwise the project purpose will be jeopardized. 5. On behalf of the respondent-Bank a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. The details of the loan etc., are not denied at all. The payment of Rs. 53.60 lakhs towards term loan and payment towards working capital are admitted. However, in Paragraph 3 of the counter it is stated that as the property offered as security was found to be land locked the further disbursement has been stopped. It is also stated that by suppression of facts and with a mala fide intention the petitioner mortgaged the property to defraud the respondent bank. The bank also states that it has the discretion to vary the credit limits. Hence, the respondent-Bank justifies its stand in not releasing the amount. 6. It is also stated that by suppression of facts and with a mala fide intention the petitioner mortgaged the property to defraud the respondent bank. The bank also states that it has the discretion to vary the credit limits. Hence, the respondent-Bank justifies its stand in not releasing the amount. 6. These are the essential submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 7. This Court after examining the records notices that sweeping allegations of suppression of facts, mala fide intentions are made. As per the settled law on the subject, which has been reported more than once, when such allegations are made there should be clear, categorical pleadings and also proof. The law laid down in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu and others, AIR 1974 SC 555 and other cases continue to hold the field. The allegations of malice, fraud, suppression of fact demand a high standard of proof and clear pleadings. In the case on hand other than stating suppression of facts, mala fide intention etc., nothing has been shown as to how the petitioner suppressed the facts with a mala fide intention. 8. This Court also finds that the respondent is a public sector bank, that they have a team of officials to process loans, title deeds and to value the property. Valuation of the property is done by their own engineers/approved valuers. The loan application in this case was processed in July, 2018. The details of the collateral security are very clearly mentioned in the sanction letter itself. An equitable mortgage has also been created, as can be seen from the document dated 22.6.2018 addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Samalkot. Required stamp duty has also been paid. Therefore, it is clear that by June, 2018 itself full details of the property were available with the respondents. It appears that a valuation was done for this property in May, 2018 itself and the property was valued as Rs. 98.28 lakhs. In the subsequent engineer's revaluation report annexed to the counter-affidavit, a remark is made that the property is "land locked property". Basing on this report of July-2019, the bank is trying to justify its stand of refusing to pay the balance loan amount. 98.28 lakhs. In the subsequent engineer's revaluation report annexed to the counter-affidavit, a remark is made that the property is "land locked property". Basing on this report of July-2019, the bank is trying to justify its stand of refusing to pay the balance loan amount. As pointed out by the petitioner, funds were not released after October, 2018, and this report is of July, 2019 is being pressed into service to deny the balance loan. This Court is of the opinion that the same appears to be a clear afterthought. 9. Even otherwise, as per the settled law on the subject, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a land mark decision of Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 848 : (1983) 3 SCC 379 , the principles of promissory estoppel would clearly apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. In Paragraphs 9 and 10 and to it was held as follows: "9. ............The true principle of promissory estoppel, therefore seems to be that where one party has by his words of conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective whether there is any preexisting relationship between the parties or not. (Emphasis supplied) 10. Thus, the principle of promissory estoppel would certainly estop the Corporation from backing out of its obligation arising from a solemn promise made by it to the respondent." (Emphasis supplied) 10. If this case is examined against the backdrop of the leading case on the subject it is clear that the petitioner submitted his loan application and offered his title deed as a security. The same was processed and approved. A substantial part of the working capital and the term loan were disbursed (Nearly 75%). If this case is examined against the backdrop of the leading case on the subject it is clear that the petitioner submitted his loan application and offered his title deed as a security. The same was processed and approved. A substantial part of the working capital and the term loan were disbursed (Nearly 75%). An equitable mortgage was created and only thereafter the loan was released. Backing out by the bank at this stage is not at all correct and it cannot be countenanced. An industry, which is partially set up with the aid of the bank's promise to be given by the respondent cannot be allowed to suffer and the petitioner, who acted upon the representations and the promise of the respondent cannot be left in the lurch. In Para 4 of the writ affidavit he clearly states that basing on the assurance of the 3rd respondent to release the sanctioned loan he has started the project. 11. The situation of the petitioner is currently as follows: 12. His property has already been mortgaged and a part of the loan has been advanced. Today if he has to get his property back he will have to repay the loan amount that has already been disbursed by the respondent. Without the title deeds of the property he cannot approach another institution and get a loan also. Therefore, the petitioner is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. If he goes to another bank they would take their own time to sanction the loan. The amount paid by the petitioner towards loan processing charges, stamp duty for mortgage etc., to the respondent are all lost. Apart from this there is loss of time and the likely loss of subsidy. The failure of the bank to indicate that it has taken any action against the persons responsible for clearing the loan on the allegedly land locked property is clear. The fact also remains that the property is valued at Rs. 5,000/- per square yard. The prevailing market value in that area ranges between Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per square yard. Therefore, it is valued at Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, it is not as if the property is absolutely worthless. 13. The fact also remains that the property is valued at Rs. 5,000/- per square yard. The prevailing market value in that area ranges between Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per square yard. Therefore, it is valued at Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, it is not as if the property is absolutely worthless. 13. The last submission that was made by the learned Counsel for the bank is that as per the conditions of the allotment the bank has a right to alter, cancel or modify the credit limit/loan sanction and or the terms and conditions stipulated without assigning any reason thereto. This Court is of the opinion that even if this absolute power to alter the contract is there it can only be exercised after giving the petitioner due notice of the bank's idea to cancel/modify the limits. As per the rules of natural justice, which are an integral part and parcel of our judicial system, the petitioner should be put on notice. This decision will have adverse civil consequences. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a notice before the decision is taken. A unilateral decision to stop the further transaction/disbursement is not correct. This failure on the part of the respondent-Bank to give notice before deciding unilaterally to stop further disbursement is a breach of the rules of natural justice. It is also clear that the enabling provision to alter/modify the limits etc., does not extend to shutting off/stopping the entire loan disbursal, particularly after a large part of the loan was disbursed. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases has held that where the actions of the State or State instrumentalities are not as per the law or if there is a breach of the terms and conditions of the contract and breach of the rules of natural justice a writ is maintainable. In the case on hand without informing the petitioner of any reason, the bank has on its own decided not to disburse the further loan. The representations sent by the petitioner, including the lawyer's notice, did not yield any result. The actions are contrary to the expected standards of behavior and action by the State instrumentality. A writ is therefore maintainable. 15. The representations sent by the petitioner, including the lawyer's notice, did not yield any result. The actions are contrary to the expected standards of behavior and action by the State instrumentality. A writ is therefore maintainable. 15. Therefore, this Court holds that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India a report in Gujarat State Finance Corporation's case (supra), there should be a direction to the respondents to forthwith release a balance loan amount to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be left in the lurch. If the action was taken at the very inception, and the loan was denied the bank would not have been liable. But after getting proper inspection/valuation through their Counsels, valuers, field staff etc., sanctioning and disbursing the loan they cannot at this stage say that the property is land locked and refuse to disburse the rest of the loan particularly when the property has a saleable value. Definitely, this Court is of the opinion that the rule of promissory estoppel applies and the respondents should therefore be directed to honour the contract and disburse the balance (amount. Para 13 of Gujarat State Financial Corporation's case (supra), is reproduced here: "13. Now if appellant entered into a solemn contract in discharge and performance of its statutory duty and the respondent acted upon it, the statutory corporation cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily so as to cause harm and injury, flowing from its unreasonable conduct, to the respondent. In such a situation, the Court is not powerless from holding the appellant to its promise and it can be enforced by a writ of mandamus directing it to perform its statutory duty. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would certainly lie to direct performance of a statutory duty by 'other authority' as envisaged by Article 12." 16. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Respondents are directed to disburse the balance amount due within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also entitled to costs of Rs. 15,000/- from the respondents. 17. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.