The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration of the application of the petitioner, for a loan, as directed in Ext.P3. Admittedly, the petitioner had taken a loan in the year 2005, which was defaulted. The petitioner's contention before this Court in the earlier writ petition was that, the petitioner has made a further application for a loan and that till such application is considered, the defaulted loan may not be proceeded against. 2. This Court, considering the fact that, the petitioner is a member of financially marginalised sector, directed consideration of the application of the petitioner filed before the Joint Registrar (General). This Court also made it very clear in Ext.P3 judgment that, the same shall be considered only if it is permissible in law. The petitioner was before the Joint Registrar as directed in Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the order passed in the year 2008. The W.P.(C) No. 34942 of 2009 (K) 2 Joint Registrar also directed the petitioner to produce the necessary documents before the respondent Bank and directed the Bank to consider the same, if the documents are produced. However, the petitioner by Ext.P7 requested the Bank to consider the loan application on the basis of the documents already mortgaged to the Bank.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, the earlier loan was defaulted and recovery proceedings were also initiated for satisfaction of the dues in the said loan account. 5 cents of property was mortgaged, which originally belonged to the mother of the petitioner in which there were other four sharers also. The respondent Bank asserts that, no further loan could have been granted on the basis of the said security especially since the said security itself was proceeded against for defaulted earlier loan.
4. This Court and the Joint Registrar had directed W.P.(C) No. 34942 of 2009 (K) 3 consideration of the petitioner's loan application, but only if the petitioner produces necessary documents and the action is permissible in law. The petitioner ought to have produced proper security for availing a further loan. The mere fact that, an earlier mortgage was created would not enable the petitioner to seek for subsequent loan on the basis of the said security; especially since the said security; itself was found insufficient for the defaulted earlier loan. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the authority of the Bank to consider a loan application on the basis of the security offered and the financial viability of such sanction and disbursal.
In such circumstances, none of the prayers in the writ petition could be considered. Accordingly, the writ petition would stand dismissed.
AMV/02/12/ Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE