JUDGMENT : (Syam Kumar V.M., J.) This Writ Appeal challenges the judgment dated 29.03.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23271 of 2020. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C) and respondents were the respondents therein. 2. The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of sale of cashew nuts had filed the W.P.(C) inter alia seeking to quash Ext.P6 issued by the 4 th respondent Bank rejecting his proposal for sanctioning a limit of Rs.93 lakhs under Ext.P1 Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) of the 1 st respondent. Petitioner had also sought a direction to the 4 th respondent to implement the scheme and extend its benefit to the petitioner/his proprietorship concern viz., M/s. Sree Vinayaka Agencies. 3. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that though the 4 th respondent had sanctioned an additional cash credit limit of 90 lakhs to the petitioner on 19.02.2020 for conduct of cashew business, no shipment had been received for the said additional amount sanctioned and no transactions had taken place in the petitioner's account since such sanctioning. Consequently, the decision of the 4 th respondent not to extend the benefit of the ECLG scheme to the petitioner is supported by prudent business principles and commercial practices. Holding that the petitioner does not have an unbridled legal right to claim the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme, the learned Single Judge upheld the rejection of the application of the petitioner for benefit under Ext.P1 scheme and found that there was no reason for interfering with the decision taken by the 4 th respondent. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing his W.P.(C), the petitioner has filed this appeal. 4. Heard Sri.Sujin S., Advocate for the appellant (petitioner), Sri.H.Ramanan, Advocate for the 4 th respondent and Smt.O.M.Shalina, learned DSGI for respondents 1 and 2. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the scheme, which was evolved post COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner/his petitioner's proprietorship concern was entitled to the pre-approved sanction limit of up to 20% of the loan outstanding, extended to eligible borrowers in the form of an additional working capital term loan facility. Petitioner had availed a term loan of Rs.3.75 Crores from the branch of the 4 th respondent at Kollam. Though he sought the benefit under the scheme, he was wrongly denied the same. Petitioner had availed a term loan of Rs.3.75 Crores from the branch of the 4 th respondent at Kollam. Though he sought the benefit under the scheme, he was wrongly denied the same. The learned counsel contended that the 4 th respondent Bank had issued Ext.P2 letter to the petitioner stating that the operations in the Bank account of the petitioner were not satisfactory, and that the repayment in the working capital term loan was not regular and that no interest was served in the account. Petitioner had approached the 4 th respondent Bank requesting that the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme should be extended to him. The respondent Bank, however, vide Ext.P3 letter dated 15.06.2020, without considering the grave financial situation existing after the pandemic, called upon the petitioner to ensure full resumption of activity through the account and declined the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme vide Ext.P6 letter. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the discretion of the 4 th respondent Bank in distributing the benefits granted by Ext.P1 scheme is very limited. The scheme had specifically stated that it applies to all loans sanctioned under the Guarantee Emergency Credit Line (GECL), and the objective of the scheme was to provide relief to the micro, small and medium enterprises. The scheme had been issued in the public interest and to augur well for the economy. The objective of the scheme was to help mitigate the burden of debt servicing brought about by the disruptions of COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure the continuity of a viable business. As regards the contention that there was non-utilisation of the additional working capital of Rs. 90 lakhs which had been provided, it is submitted that an amount of Rs. 81.50 lakhs had been forwarded therefrom to one M/s. Surya cashew factory, which is one of the reputed sellers to the petitioner and due to COVID-19 and non-availability of flight services, the petitioner could not travel to verify the quality of the products and give confirmation for the export. Consequently, materials concerning that payment had not been supplied. Thus, even though Rs.90 lakhs additional working capital had been infused, petitioner could not import raw cashew and could not do domestic business only because of a shortage of funds. It is due to the same reason that from April 2019 till September 2020, he had no business transactions. Consequently, materials concerning that payment had not been supplied. Thus, even though Rs.90 lakhs additional working capital had been infused, petitioner could not import raw cashew and could not do domestic business only because of a shortage of funds. It is due to the same reason that from April 2019 till September 2020, he had no business transactions. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Velankanni Information Systems Limited v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and others [(2020) SCC OnLine Kar 835] and it is contended that since there is no mechanism which is created for redressal of grievance on account of improper implementation or non-implementation of recovery package or circular, and there is no forum created for the petitioner to complain regarding any actions of the Bank, the court would have to intervene and provide the remedy to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge had overlooked the said aspect and sought to set aside the judgment and allow the Writ Appeal. 6. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent Bank submitted that the petitioner/his proprietorship concern was not eligible to avail Ext. P1 GECL scheme for more than one reason. It was contended that the petitioner's cash credit limit of Rs.3.75 Crores sanctioned earlier had been restructured even before the lockdown due to COVID-19 by the Zonal Office of the 4 th respondent and though an additional limit of Rs.90 lakhs had been sanctioned to the petitioner it was found that no shipment were received for the said additional limit sanctioned. No transactions had taken place in the petitioner's account since such sanction of additional amounts, and the petitioner, when he sought GECL sanction, was called upon to submit documents relating to the sales of the petitioner's firm during 2019-20 and other relevant documents. Petitioner had replied to the same vide Ext. R-4 (a) inter alia admitting that his concern had no sales turnover and that from April 2019 onwards till September 2020, there were no business transactions at all. Petitioner had replied to the same vide Ext. R-4 (a) inter alia admitting that his concern had no sales turnover and that from April 2019 onwards till September 2020, there were no business transactions at all. Petitioner had admitted that the sale turnover was nil for the preceding 18 months and that the additional limit of Rs.90 lakhs received by him from the 4 th respondent could not be utilised as he could not import raw cashew, though a major amount had been paid to one M/s. Surya Cashew. After considering the said aspects, the competent authority observed that the petitioner is not eligible for the sanction of GECL. The 4 th respondent Bank thus issued to the petitioner Ext.R4 (b) letter enumerating the inherent weakness of the relevant account of the petitioner and informing him that his proposal for sanctioning GECL limit of Rs.93 Lakhs stands rejected for the reasons elaborated. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner had suppressed the Ext.R4 (a) while filing the W.P. (C), and that even from Exts.P2 and P3 letters produced by the petitioner, it could be seen that the petitioner did not have any stock, stock in trade, purchases or sales and that he had been requested by the 4 th respondent to resume activity and route sale proceeds through the cash credit account with the 4 th respondent. He had further been informed vide Ext.P3 that his chances of availing further credit limits would be affected if the business is not resumed after allotment of the additional limit of Rs.90 lakhs. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent Bank submitted that Ext.P1 scheme is available only to borrowers to tide over financial crises during COVID-19 period and not for borrowers whose business had already suffered before COVID-19. Insofar as the petitioner's business does not have any turnover, even after the sanction of the additional limit of Rs.90 lakhs on 01.09.2020, the petitioner was not eligible for Ext.P1 scheme. His account has been under stress even before COVID-19, and the conduct of the account by the petitioner has never been satisfactory. As far as the petitioner is concerned, COVID-19 is not the reason for the stress in the account, and hence, he is not eligible to avail the benefit of GECL scheme. His account has been under stress even before COVID-19, and the conduct of the account by the petitioner has never been satisfactory. As far as the petitioner is concerned, COVID-19 is not the reason for the stress in the account, and hence, he is not eligible to avail the benefit of GECL scheme. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the dictum laid down by this Court in South Indian Bank v. Parthas Textiles [2024 KHC Online 2] wherein a Division Bench of this Court considered the question whether the benefit of circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India in the context of COVID-19 related stress can be extended to a borrower with pre-existing stress in the account, which had been aggravated on account of the economic fallout of COVID-19. It was held by this Court that reliefs provided in such circulars cannot be extended to the borrowers with pre-existing stress in the account, which had been further detrimentally impacted by the pandemic. Pointing to Ext.R4 (c), which is the operational guidelines for Ext.P1 scheme, it is contended by the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent that a Member Lending Institution (MLI), as per the scheme has certain duties and obligations to be complied with while sanctioning the amount to the borrower and it had been stipulated in the said operational guidelines that MLIs are expected to have simple and enabling criteria to assess the borrower eligibility and that since the loans are being provided to existing borrowers, it is expected that the time required for due diligence would be minimal. It had been further instructed in Ext.R4 (c) operational guidelines that the lending institution shall in respect of any guaranteed account, exercise the same diligence in recovering the dues and safeguarding the interests of the trustee company in all the ways open to it as it might have exercised in the normal course, if no guarantee had been furnished by the trustee company. It is thus contended that the 4 th respondent, being an MLI is duty-bound to exercise discretion in granting loans as per Ext.P1 Scheme, and it was only abiding by the same when the competent authority of the 4 th respondent had issued Ext.P6, rejecting the petitioner's proposal on very valid and legally tenable grounds. It is thus contended that the 4 th respondent, being an MLI is duty-bound to exercise discretion in granting loans as per Ext.P1 Scheme, and it was only abiding by the same when the competent authority of the 4 th respondent had issued Ext.P6, rejecting the petitioner's proposal on very valid and legally tenable grounds. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the challenge against Ext.P6 cannot be sustained and the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the same. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent thus prayed for a dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. We note that the learned Single Judge had taken due note of the mandates under which the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme was to be availed and had validly concluded that the petitioner/ his proprietorship concern did not meet the said mandates. The learned Single Judge had elaborately considered the contentions of both parties and had taken note of the facts revealed through the respective documents produced that the petitioner did not have any stock, stock in trade, purchase or sales and that the petitioner had failed to resume the activity and route sales proceeds through the cash credit account and that Ext.P1 scheme was available only to borrowers to tide over the financial crisis during COVID-19 period and not for borrowers whose businesses had already suffered much before COVID-19. We find that the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge is in line with the principle laid down by this Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra). We find merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent that being a Member Lending Institution (MLI), the 4 th respondent had certain duties and obligations to be scrupulously complied with while sanctioning the amount to the borrower and that it was duty bound to exercise discretion in granting loans as per Ext.P1 Scheme. Ext.P6, rejecting the petitioner's proposal, had been issued after the competent authority had thoroughly scrutinised the proposal of the petitioner in the background of the commercial competence, performance and viability of the petitioner's proprietorship. Once the competent authority of the 4 th respondent, after exercise of due prudence and in compliance with the relevant mandates, had rejected the proposal, the 4 th respondent was duty-bound to issue Ext.P6. 8. Once the competent authority of the 4 th respondent, after exercise of due prudence and in compliance with the relevant mandates, had rejected the proposal, the 4 th respondent was duty-bound to issue Ext.P6. 8. The petitioner has no case that before the drawing up of Ext.P1 scheme, which was earmarked for enabling existing borrowers to tide over the detrimental impact of COVID-19 pandemic, the commercial viability and health of his proprietorship concern were robust and viable. Ext.R4 (a) submitted by him to the 4 th respondent Bank would reveal his admissions to the contrary. The learned Single Judge, we note, had declined the relief sought after due consideration of all the relevant inputs and parameters. We find no reason to interfere with the same. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.