Ghanshyam Namdeo vs Union Bank of India

U.C. Maheshwari, Judge

Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities of the respondent No. 1 and 2 to extend some more reasonable time to deposit the loan amount disbursed to the respondent No. 3 on the guarantee of the petitioner.

It appears from the papers placed on record that on earlier occasion also the petitioner has filed a writ petition No. 9757/12 in this regard. On consideration vide order dated 19.7.2012 the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner''s representation dated 25.6.2012 with a further direction to give some more time to deposit the aforesaid loan amount.

It appears that in compliance of aforesaid direction the representation of the petitioner was considered and authorities of respondent No. 1 and 2 has passed the order dated 7.8.2012 (Ann. P. 6) whereby the time up to 31.8.2012 has been extended to the petitioner to deposit the alleged sum of loan. It is apparent fact on record that even after extending the time not a single penny has been deposited by the petitioner or respondent No. 3. Thus, looking to such conduct of the petitioner by invoking the extraordinary power of this Court vested under Article 226 of Constitution of India no writ could be issued at the instance of the petitioner against the respondent No. 1 and 2. It is also noted that on examining the matter I have not found any material circumstance that because of recovery proceeding of respondent No. 1 and 2 any fundamental right of petitioner is going to be violated. In such premises there is no scope in the matter even for admission. Consequently the petition is hereby dismissed.