JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of March 2021 The petitioner is the proprietor of Parthasarathi fuels, having credit facilities from the respondent Bank. On introduction of Guaranteed Emergency credit Line Scheme (GECL) introduced by the Central Government in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, as per Ext.P1/Annexure R1(a), petitioner submitted an application for loan, pursuant to Ext.P2 letter of the 2nd respondent informing him the availability of the scheme. But, as per Ext.P3 letter dated 22.07.2020 the 2nd respondent rejected the application stating that the property loan availed by the petitioner jointly with his wife and housing loan availed by his wife were under SMA-2 as on 29.02.2020. It was further stated that commercial vehicle loan availed by the proprietor is suit filed account as per CIBIL report and that auto loan availed by the petitioner's wife who is the guarantor, to the limit showed overdue as per CIBIL report. The Writ Petition is filed stating that the reasons stated in Ext.P3 are incorrect. Petitioner points out that the application was submitted by him alone and not along with or by the wife. According to the petitioner none of the accounts referred to in Ext.P3 was overdue or under SMA-2 as on 29.02.2020 as stated in Ext.P3 letter. It is stated that the respondents should not have taken into consideration the loan availed by his wife from another bank or the consequential CIBIL report. The petitioner submitted that he is entitled to the benefit of ECLGS introduced by the Government of India and the rejection of the application without hearing him is illegal.

2. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 filed a statement. Relying on the provisions contained in Annexure R1(a) Scheme it is stated that in order to become eligible for GECL loan under the said Scheme borrowers accounts should be less than or equal to 60 days past due as on 29.02.2020 and only borrowers who were not classified as SMA-2 or NPA by any of the banks or NBFCs as on 29.02.2020 would alone be eligible for the benefit of the scheme. It was also stated that as per the scheme while examining the eligibility of the borrower, the lending institutions have to make sure that there are no defaults on the part of the borrower, with regard to any of the loans availed by him across all Banks and NBFCs as on 29.02.2020 and in order to ensure the same, Ext.R1(a)scheme provides for checking the credit score or rating of the Borrower with credit agencies. Respondents further stated that petitioner had along with his wife, taken a loan against the property from the respondent bank, a term loan, which was found to be classified as SMA-2 as on 29.02.2020 and that made him ineligible under the ECLGS. It is also stated that as per CIBIL, a commercial vehicle loan availed by the petitioner from SBI for the purpose of his concern Parthasarathy Fuel was defaulted and a civil suit is pending for recovery of the loan amount and that loan comes under the category of NPA. Apart from that it is stated that the guarantor to the credit facility availed of by the petitioner is his wife and as per CIBIL report the auto loan availed by her from Kotak Mahindra Bank is also found to be irregular and therefore it is stated that petitioner is not eligible under ECLGS and he is not entitled to the benefit of Ext.P1 Scheme. It is their further case that the Scheme itself provides for a grievance mechanism for raising grievances and petitioner would be free to file online application to the National Guarantee Trust company in the application provided in the portal.

3. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit asserting that none of the accounts referred to by the respondents were classified as NPA or SMA-2 as on 29.02.2020. It is further stated that application was submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent Bank on 23.06.2020 and as on that date, the account with the 1st respondent Bank was not classified as SMA-2. It is stated that as on the date of Ext.P3 letter