Visveshvaraya Grameena Bank vs Mr. N. Madappa and The State of Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.—These appeals by the appellants/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is directed against the impugned order dated 16/09/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 8553-54/2011. Petitioner/1st respondent, questioning the correctness of the endorsement dated 31.1.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent/1st appellant in refusing to renew the loan transaction of the 1st respondent and seeking a direction to the appellants to consider his representation dated 5.2.2011 for particulars of the alleged loan transaction of M. Gowramma in No. CPVD/50/2005 has filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos. 8553-54/2011, contending that, he is an Account holder with 2nd respondent/1st appellant and requested to grant him crop loan, for which, an endorsement has been issued by the bank on the ground that he had stood as guarantor in favour of one Gowramma in respect of her loan Account No. CPVD/50/2005 until and unless loan borrowed is cleared his case will not be considered. Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner/1st respondent that he is not a party for the conversion when the loan granted to Gowramma is barred by limitation cannot be posted against him and he cannot be compelled to clear loan account of Gowramma and it is for 2nd respondent/1st appellant to proceed against Gowramma and recover the same and that his right to get loan as a member of the bank cannot be denied. The said matters had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 16/11/2011. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusing the material available on record, has disposed of the said writ petitions, with a direction to the Bank to consider the case of the petitioner/1st respondent for grant of loan and dispose of the said application in accordance with law and the same hall not be rejected on the ground that he had stood as guarantor to Gowramma. Being aggrieved by the observation made by the learned Single Judge in para-4 of the order impugned, the appellants have presented these appeals.

The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, when there is no contractual obligations between the parties, this Court cannot entertain the writ petitions, but, this aspect of the matter has not been considered or appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

As against this, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for 2nd respondent, inter-alia, contended and substantiated the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Further, he submits that there is no error or irregularity as such is committed by he learned Single Judge in issuing such a direction and therefore, it does not call for interference. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, even if there is no contractual obligation between the parties, the only request made by the petitioner/first respondent being the account holder of the bank to grant crop loan and when the loan of Gowrama has been converted at her request, he is not a party to the same nor he stood as guarantor and therefore, there is no impediment for the bank to consider his application as per the Regulations of the bank. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for 2nd respondent and after perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error or illegality or material irregularity as such committed by the learned Single judge in the order impugned. The only direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellants is to consider the representation given by the petitioner/1st respondent for grant of crop loan and dispose of the same in accordance with law and it shall not be rejected on the ground that he had stood as guarantor to Gowramma. It is a fact that, the application of the petitioner/1st respondent has been rejected by the Bank on the hyper technical ground that he had stood as guarantor in favour of one Gowramma in respect of her loan and until and unless the loan borrowed by her is cleared, his case will be not considered. It is the case of the petitioner/1st respondent that he is not a party for the conversion and when the loan granted to Gowramma is barred by limitation, it cannot be posted against him and therefore, the appellants cannot take a stand that petitioner/1st respondent has to clear the said loan. There is some substance in the said submission. This aspect of the matter has been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge and has issued a direction to the Bank to consider the application filed by the petitioner/1st respondent for crop. loan and dispose of the same in accordance with law and the same shall not be rejected on the ground that he had stood as guarantor to Gowramma. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned is well considered and well founded one and therefore, it does not call for interference. Hence, the appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed as devoid of merits.

In view of the dismissal of the appeals on merits, the relief sought by the appellants in IA No. I/2011 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed off as having become infructuous.