VISVESHVARAYA GRAMEENA BANK, NOW REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AND CHAIRMAN Vs. N. MADAPPA AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.