K.C. GRAND Vs. J&K BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the communication dtd. 5/5/2020 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the request of the petitioner for providing the copy of Bank appraisal report/note regarding loan of the petitioner has not been acceded to and further prayer has been made for directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide the loan appraisal report to the petitioner or directly forward the same to the respondent No. 3 for processing the case of the petitioner regarding sanctioning and payment of subsidy.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner had applied for the loan to the tune of Rs.870.00 lacs (Rupees Eight Crores Seventy lacs only) for the construction of hotel and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sanctioned the said loan amount vide sanction letter dtd. 18/1/2006. The loan documents including mortgage deed were also executed. The petitioner repaid the loan amount to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent No. 2 also informed the Jammu Development Authority vide communication dtd. 21/6/2017 and pursuant to said communication, the bank lien was removed with regard to the land measuring 5.52 Kanals. It is further stated that Industrial Development Scheme, 2017 has been framed and the entrepreneurs who have availed the loan from the bank are also eligible for the sanction, grant and payment of subsidy. It is averred that the petitioner had constructed four storied hotel building with two basements situated at Rail Head, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu and the same was made functional. The petitioner being eligible for getting the subsidy submitted online application on IDS Portal to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was advised to fulfil as many as 10 requirements including providing a copy of the bank appraisal report/note. The petitioner accordingly, submitted an application to the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 vide its communication dtd. 5/5/2020 informed the petitioner that its request for providing the copy of bank appraisal report has not been acceded to by the competent authority. It is further stated that the petitioner has fulfilled nine requirements but only bank appraisal report/note has not been furnished because the same was not provided by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without any lawful justification. After receiving the aforesaid communication from the respondent No. 3, the petitioner again approached the respondent No. 2 and discussion was held, wherein it was agreed that the request of the petitioner would be accepted. Accordingly, the petitioner vide letter dtd. 16/6/2020 requested the respondent No. 2 to send the appraisal report to DIC (respondent No. 3) directly so that its application for IDS could be processed at the earliest. The petitioner time and again approached for bank appraisal report/note but nothing has been done by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner claims to have been warned by the respondent No. 3 that in case, the bank appraisal report is not submitted before the due date, its claim would not be registered and consequently, the petitioner would not be entitled to the payment of capital subsidy. The petitioner has stated that as the loan stood adjusted and settled long ago with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, so in these circumstances, there is no impediment and hurdle for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide the copy of the bank appraisal report/note for its submission to the respondent No. 3 for granting, sanctioning and payment of capital subsidy. But the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without any reason have issued the communication impugned thereby, rejecting the request of the petitioner.

(3.) Response stands filed by the respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have stated that disputed questions of facts are involved in the writ petition, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that the petitioner had applied with the bank for the purpose of availing term loan facility for construction of hotel at Rail Head Complex, Jammu to the tune of Rs.870.00 lacs and cash credit facility of Rs.15.75 lacs. Out of sanctioned facility, only the term loan of Rs.870.00 lacs was released in favour of the petitioner-firm. The petitioner had committed default in liquidating the loan amount, as such, the loan account of the petitioner was declared as NPA (Non-performing Assets) on 10/11/2009 and instead of paying the whole outstanding loan amount, the petitioner firm opted for the settlement of their loan amount under One Time Settlement Scheme. Since, the loan account of the petitioner had turned NPA within short period of loan facility, so the competent authority agreed to adjust the loan of petitioner under OTS only on 21/6/2017. It is also stated that the petitioner had sought providing of the said appraisal report/note but the request of the petitioner was not acceded to by the competent authority as it is Bank's in-house document and it is meant for its exclusive purpose and such document cannot be provided and there is no such legal obligation to provide such document to the petitioner. It is also stated that so far as other documents like sanction letter and other security documents can be provided but there is no legal obligation to provide appraisal report which is Bank's in-house document and meant for its exclusive purpose.