JITENDRA RASIKLAL THAKER Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who claims to be an educated unemployed young man applied to respondent No. 1 Bank of India Gandhidham Kachchh Branch on 27/08/1987 for a loan to purchase a motor truck. The Gandhidham branch of respondent No. 1 sent the papers to the Regional Office of the bank. At short intervals the petitioner went on addressing letters to Gandhidham branch the Regional Office and to other quarters making allegations against the officers of Gandhidham branch of the respondent bank that his application for loan was not processed promptly and the loan was not sanctioned to him promptly. Within about a month of his first application he approached Smt. Ushabehn Thakker Member of Parliament from his Constituency as also Shri Janardan Poojari the Finance Minister for State at the Centre and repeated his complaint against the Branch Manager of Gandhidham Branch of the respondent-bank. The Regional Office of the respondent-bank deputed its officers to investigate the case of the petitioner with a view to finding out if the proposal of purchasing a truck which the petitioner had came with was economically viable. Within a short time of his application the petitioner went on writing letters to the officers of the respondent-bank asking those officers to credit into his account his salary of Rs. 2 100 per month on the ground that as his request for loan was not sanctioned promptly he remained unemployed and therefore the respondent-bank was bound to pay him salary of Rs.2 100 per month. There was a long drawn of correspondence. between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent-bank on the other and ultimately the respondent-bank by its letter dated 10/02/1988 said that the petitioner had not been able to convince the Manager Gandhidham branch of the respondent-bank about the economic viability of the proposal of the business put up by the petitioner. Therefore the respondent-bank had no other option but to decline the petitioners application for loan. With this statement the respondent-bank informed the petitioner that the matter is treated to have been closed. And the respondent-bank expressed its inability to entertain any further communication with the petitioner on the matter.

(2.) The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the decision of the respondent bank not to sanction the loan to him.

(3.) It is not the case of the petitioner that the decision of the bank not to sanction the loan to him is tainted with mala fides. The only argument of Mr. Y. S. Mankad Learned Advocate for the petitioner is the decision is arbitrary and is therefore required to be quashed. After having heard Mr. Mankad at length I see no substance in the argument.