C. PANCHAVARNAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was having a parcel of land bearing Survey No. 26/2/1 measuring an area of 333.3 square meters which is a homestead land at Deadline within Tehsil Port Blair and it was mutated in her name. She applied for a house loan before the United Commercial Bank to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. The loan was advanced and also repaid. Again the petitioner applied for a loan of Rs.10 lakhs for completing the building and though the amount was sanctioned she was only given Rs. 6,04,199/- sometime in Aug., 2004. Then followed earthquake in the Islands on 26th Dec., 2004, followed by Tsunami in consequence of which the building fell down. The Tehsildar, Port Blair upon necessary enquiry issued a certificate that the building was fully damaged by the Act of God. Though the Administration offered an ex gratia of Rs. 10,000.00the petitioner declined the offer because she suffered a total loss of Rs.44,26,814/-. The loan was sanctioned by the concerned respondent after the petitioner had mortgaged the land in favour of the Bank and it is the grievance of the petitioner that though it was the duty of the respondents to insure the land and the building that stood thereon, the Bank did not take any step as a result of which the petitioner has been put to heavy financial loss. Her representation dated 5th Jan., 2005 for claim of insurance in respect of the building was not conceded to On 18 Feb., 2005 the petitioner sent an advocate's letter upon the respondents to exonerate her of the liability of the repayment of loan on the ground of non-insurance of the building as also the land. Having got no response she filed a Writ application being W.P. No.80 of 2005 in the matter of non-insurance of the building and on 12th Jan., 2006 the respondent was directed to supply the necessary information about the property in terms of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the Senior Manager of the Bank was further directed to look into the representation of the petitioner. On 5th April, 2007 the petitioner made application before the UCO Bank for complete waiver of loan as has been done in the cases of the inhabitants of the Southern Group of Islands in terms of revival package as also the circular issued by the RBI. Another representation was also submitted on 18th Dec., 2007 to the same effect. The Empowered Task Force comprising the respondent Nos.4 to 12 was constituted for the purpose of ascertaining the actual loss on damage sustained by the inhabitants of the entire A & N Islands due to Act of God with a view to taking appropriate steps for waiver of entire house loan. But, the said committee in gross violation of the directions recommended only the cases of inhabitants of Southern Group of Islands that comprised Little Andaman and entire Nicobar District to the exclusion of the inhabitans of Northern Group of Islands within which the petitioner's house was situated. The Empowered Task Force and the UCO Bank did not inspect the land and building of the petitioner and her case was not recommended to the RBI for waver of house loan. Thus, the circular of the RBI dated 11th May, 2006 is said to be ultra vires of the Constitution because even in the revival package of the Government of India no benefit of total waiver of house loan has been extended to the inhabitants of the Northern Group of Islands. Finding no other way she filed a writ application being W.P. No. 001 of 2008 which was disposed of on 20th Feb., 2008 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of this Court the respondent Bank heard the petitioner at Kolkata but the respondent UCO Bank passed an order on 16th May, 2008 rejecting the case of the petitioner. The order dated 16th May, 2008 is also illegal because it violated a circular of the RBI which on the face is ultra vires. Accordingly, the following reliefs have been prayed for:

(2.) In this application there are 13 respondents. It is the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 12 and 13 which included Union of India, Reserve Bank of India, UCO Bank, and General Manager, Rural Planning and Credit Department, RBI, Kolkata who have been contesting the application. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos.1,2,3,4 and 13 it has been contended as follows:

(3.) Further the petitioner's residence was at the relevant point of time in the Northern Group of Islands in the Andaman district, but complete waiver of house loan to the extent they are not covered by the insurance claim was recommended by the Empowered Task Force for Southern Group of Islands, The petitioner's case was considered by the concerned Bank and it was disposed of through the package of the Government of India which was not malafide or arbitrary. It has further been contended as follows: