(1) THIS Writ Petition has been preferred by an Educational Trust praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24-2-2007 proceedings no. HUDCO/ddmet/2007/33360 and the consequential order of the third respondent dated 15-6-2007 in proceedings No. HUDCO/ow/ddmet/2007, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to process the application of the petitioner for loan dated 20-7-2006.

(2) FACTUAL details as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are as under:-

(a) The petitioner is an Educational Trust functioning at Chennai and they have submitted an application on 17-7-2006 to the fourth respondent for availing loan for construction of building and purchase of equipments for the proposed medical college. The fourth respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the process fee and to apply in the prescribed format and accordingly, the petitioner made an application along with the required documents and the same were acknowledged by the respondents. Subsequently, the Inspection Team of the respondents visited the college on 20-8-2006 and verified the existing buildings, lands, hospital etc. and submitted its report to the respondents. However, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the respondents and as such, the petitioner made a series of representations to the respondents and ultimately the second respondent as per proceedings dated 29-1-2007 informed them that they are unable to consider the request of the petitioner for grant of loan. Since no reasons were found mentioned in the said proceedings, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 14-2-2007 requesting the respondents to give reasons for such a rejection. The second respondent thereafter as per letter dated 24-2-2007 informed the petitioner about material discrepancy observed by the inspection Team and their opinion that the proposal did not merit acceptance. Subsequently, the third respondent as per communication dated 15-6-2007 informed the petitioner that they are not in a position to consider the application of the plaintiff and as such, requested them to treat the matter as closed. Aggrieved by those two orders dated 24-2-2007 and 15-6-2007, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition. (b) The fourth respondent has filed a counter-affidavit for and on behalf of all the respondents and in the said counter-affidavit, the fourth respondent has detailed the reasons which made them to reject the loan application submitted by the petitioner. The main reason for rejection of the loan application was the lack of financial liability as well as the improper project revenue stream. There were other reasons also as mentioned in the counter-affidavit to justify their stand that the petitioner was not entitled for loan from the respondents as a matter of right.

(3) IN the above factual background, I have heard Thiru. Selvaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Thiru K. Sounder, the learned Counsel appearing for

the respondents.

(4) THE grievance of the petitioner pertains to the rejection of their application for loan. The application submitted by the petitioner was originally rejected as per order dated 29-1-2007 without any reason and subsequently, as per proceedings dated 24-2-2007, the respondents intimated the petitioner that due to certain material discrepancy observed during the inspection made by the Regional Office Officers and the report submitted thereafter, it was felt that the proposal did not merit consideration and accordingly, the same was rejected. Subsequently, as per proceedings dated 15-6-2007 the respondents have given detailed reasons for rejection of the loan application.

(5) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the reason that there were material discrepancies found in the inspection made by the RO members were no more valid on account of the subsequent report made by the Missi