ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. The petitioner is stuck between Scylla and Charybdis or between the devil and the deep blue sea.

2. The petitioner before this Court is a borrower from the respondent-Bank, who is seeking relief against a nationalized Bank. Normally a writ would not have been entertained against the Bank in a loan transaction. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where both inaction on the part of the respondent bank and failure to pay the loan amount are alleged, this Court has taken up the matter for hearing.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank.

4. The petitioner has established a fly ash brick industry. He started a business under MSME Scheme. He applied for a loan to the respondent-Bank. The sanctioned limit was Rs. 95,00,000/-. Out of this Rs. 95,00,000/- a sum of Rs. 68.22 lakhs was released to the petitioner towards working capital and a part of the term loan. Apart from executing the loan documents as security for the said loan, petitioner has mortgaged his property to the hilt. Value of the said property, as mentioned in the loan application, is Rs. 98.28 lakhs. The valuation was done on 12.5.2018. After July, 2018 as the balance loan amount was not being released the petitioner made representations also but the respondent-Bank did not release the loan. Therefore, the writ is filed seeking a direction to release the balance amount of Rs. 41.40 lakhs as otherwise the project purpose will be jeopardized.

5. On behalf of the respondent-Bank a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. The details of the loan etc., are not denied at all. The payment of Rs. 53.60 lakhs towards term loan and payment towards working capital are admitted. However, in Paragraph 3 of the counter it is stated that as the property offered as security was found to be land locked the further disbursement has been stopped. It is also stated that by suppression of facts and with a mala fide intention the petitioner mortgaged the property to defraud the respondent bank. The bank also states that it has the discretion to vary the credit limits. Hence, the respondent-Bank justifies its stand in not releasing the amount.

6. These are the essential submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

7. This Court after examining the records notices that sweeping allegations of suppression of facts, mala fide intentions are made. As per the settled law on the subject, which has been reported more than once, when such allegations are made there should be clear, categorical pleadings and also proof. The law laid down in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu and others, AIR 1974 SC 555 and other cases continue to hold the field. The allegations of malice, fraud, suppression of fact demand a high standard of proof and clear pleadings. In the case on hand other than stating suppression of facts, mala fide intention etc., nothing has been shown as to how the petitioner suppressed the facts with a mala fide intention.

8. This Court also finds that the respondent is a public sector bank, that they have a team of officials to process loans, title deeds and to value the property. Valuation of the property is done by their own engineers/approved valuers. The loan application in this case was processed in July, 2018. The details of the collateral security are very clearly mentioned in the sanction letter itself. An equitable mortgage has also been created, as can be seen from the document dated 22.6.2018 addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Samalkot. Required stamp duty has also been paid. Therefore, it is clear that by June, 2018 itself full details of the property were available with the respondents. It appears that a valuation was done for this property in May, 2018 itself and the property was valued as Rs. 98.28 lakhs. In the subsequent engineer's revaluation report annexed to the counter-affidavit, a remark