BASAVARAJAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. A. PADMANABHA, LEARNED HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE NOTICE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.

(2.) THE PETITIONER BORROWED LOAN FROM 4th RESPONDENT-MALAPRABHA grameena BANK AND DUG A BORE-WELL IN HIS LAND. THE BORE-WELL FAILED. UNDER THE IRRIGATION BORE-WELLS DRILLING PROGRAMME (IBDP) AND INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (IRDP) THE AMOUNT TAKEN FOR failed BOREWELLS WOULD BE WAIVED. SINCE THE BOREWELL GOT DRILLED BY THE petitioner FAILED, HE SOUGHT TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT UNDER THE AFORESAID scheme. THE CONCERNED GEOLOGIST CERTIFIED THAT THE BOREWELL IS FAILED. THE TAHSILDAR ALSO CERTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER was REJECTED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT WITH A DIRECTION TO SUBMIT FRESH application THROUGH 4th RESPONDENT-BANK. THE PETITIONER COMPLIED WITH the SAME. SINCE THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION, HE FILED W. P. NO. 23856 OF 1995 AND IN THAT THIS COURT DIRECTED 2nd RESPONDENT TO DISPOSE OF THE application OF THE PETITIONER. PURSUANT TO SUCH DIRECTION, THE 2nd RESPON dent HAS ISSUED THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-D, DATED 26-6-1995 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT IN RESPECT OF the CASES PRIOR TO OR AFTER 1-7-1987, SANCTION CANNOT BE MADE FOR BOREWELLS BECAUSE NO SUCH SCHEME WAS IN EXISTENCE NOW. AGGRIEVED BY THE same THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION SEEKING TO QUASH THE SAID endorsement AND TO DIRECT THE 2nd RESPONDENT TO SANCTION THE AMOUNT under THE AFORESAID SCHEME.

(3.) THE FACT THAT THE BOREWELL DUG BY THE PETITIONER HAD FAILED IS NOT IN dispute. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT PETITIONER HAS FULFILLED ALL THE formalities TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT UNDER THE SCHEME THAT WAS IN VOGUE FOR failed BOREWELLS. AT AN EARLIER POINT THE PETITIONER WAS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT FRESH APPLICATION BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT THROUGH 4th RESPONDENT-BANK. THE PETITIONER COMPLIED WITH THE SAME. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT OPEN to THE 2nd RESPONDENT TO ISSUE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURED. HAD THE REASON ASSIGNED IN THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NOW BEEN assigned EARLIER WHEN HE WAS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT FRESH APPLICATION through 4th RESPONDENT, THAT WAS A DIFFERENT MATTER. THE PETITIONER WAS compelled TO APPROACH THIS COURT EARLIER IN W. P. NO. 23856 OF 1995 seeking A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF HIS APPLICATION WHICH WAS FILED PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF 2nd RESPONDENT. CURIOUSLY, THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THE SAME DAY WHEN THIS COURT DIRECTED THE 2nd respondent TO DISPOSE OF PETITIONER's APPLICATION. IT ONLY SHOWS THAT ONLY to OVERCOME THE DIRECTION OF THIS COURT THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT HAS been ISSUED AND THERE IS TOTALLY NON-APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE FACTS OF case BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT.