M.T. Thankachan Moozhikkal vs State of Kerala

Alexander Thomas, J.—The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, is running an authorised petroleum outlet. As per Ext. P1 G.O. (Rt) No. 366/2012/SCSTDD dated 29.2.2012 issued by the 1st respondent-Govt., sanction has been accorded by the Government for grant of loans upto Rs. 10 lakhs each to petroleum dealers belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at the concessional rate of 4% per annum and necessary funds in this regard for disbursal of such loans have been entrusted with the 2nd respondent-Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that the conditions framed by the 2nd respondent-Corporation for disbursal of such loans have also been approved by the 1st respondent-Government. The petitioner had submitted an application for availing the above said loan facility as contemplated in Ext. P1 before the 2nd respondent and the said application is referred to in Ext. P6 issued by the 2nd respondent-Corporation. The complaint of the petitioner is that the above said application for loan is not being processed and considered by the 2nd respondent-Corporation, even though the petitioner is willing to provide adequate security for such loan. It is in the back of these factual averments that the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the prayer for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the loan of Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioner in accordance with Ext. P3.

The 2nd respondent-Corporation has filed a counter affidavit dated 3.3.2014. In paragraph 5 of the said counter affidavit it is stated that the meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation held on 30.6.2012 had examined the general conditions of the scheme as approved by the Government vide Ext. P3 dated 29.5.2005 in detail and it was observed that security condition by way of collateral security or employee surety as stipulated in the Government order was not sufficient to safeguard bona fide interests of the Corporation and that the Board had further opined that only those applicants, who are producing required number of employee sureties or landed property having value equivalent to the loan amount or sufficient bank guarantee issued by a commercial bank could only be considered for assistance in the scheme and that the decision of the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent-Corporation in this regard was communicated to the Government. The petitioner has averred in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition that the petitioner had produced all the requisite documents asked for, in connection with his application for loan and it is further stated therein that the petitioner is prepared to give ten cents of property as mortgage or to abide by the condition of producing employee surety, but that even after passage of more than two years after the submission of the application, no steps have been taken to release the financial assistance due under the scheme approved by the Government. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ten cents of land owned by the petitioner is in Perumbavoor village in Ernakulam district and is having value more than sufficient security for the loan applied for by the petitioner.

Heard Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Smt. P.K. Santhamma, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Government and Sri. C.K. Jayakumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Corporation.

As Exts. P1 and P3 schemes have been formulated mainly meant for the welfare of persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities, the respondents are duty bound to consider and take necessary decision on the loan applications as conceived by those Government orders, in accordance with the norms governing the field. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the 2nd respondent-Corporation shall consider the application of the petitioner and the documents produced therewith and take an appropriate decision on the request of the petitioner for loan as contemplated in the above said Government orders. If the 2nd respondent requires any further clarifications or any further documents, it is for the 2nd respondent to intimate the petitioner regarding the compliance of such requirements within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Upon receipt of such intimation, the petitioner shall take necessary action to comply with such requirements that may be duly insisted by the 2nd respondent-Corporation in that regard. After consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter, the 2nd respondent-Corporation shall take a decision on the application of the petitioner for loan in terms of the above said Government orders within a period of six weeks therefrom. The decision shall be duly communicated to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent-Corporation.

With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.