W.P.(MD) No.3166 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 19.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

W.P.(MD) No.3166 of 2021

S.Pandian

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.Union of India,

represented by its Secretary,

Ministry of Finance,

New Delhi.

2.The Governor,

Reserve Bank of India,

Mumbai.

3.The General Manager,

Tamilnadu Grama Bank Head-Office (Annex),

No.20, Ramakrishna Road,

Salem 636 007.

4.The Regional Manager,

Tamilnadu Grama Bank,

West Car Street,

Tirunelveli Town 627 006.

5.The Branch Manager,

Tamilnadu Grama Bank,

Edaikkal,

Tenkasi District.

6.The District Manager,

TAHDCO,

Elandakulam Reserve Lane,

Palayamkottai,

Tirunelveli 627 002.

... Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to Final Notice of 5^th

respondent herein dated on 25.01.2021 quash the same as illegal and

consequently direct to issue final Notice for loan outstanding due

as on 11.02.2020 i.e. before the COVID-19 without calculating the

COVID-19 moratorium period.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja

For R3 to R5

: Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD) No.3166 of 2021

ORDER

The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Community and completed

his higher secondary education. He is an account holder in Grama

Bank, Iddaikkal Branch and being unemployed, he approached the Grama

Bank for loan for purchase of Tourist Vehicle on 17.09.2014. The 6^th

respondent bank processed the petitioner's application and

recommended sanction of loan to the 5^th respondent Branch, by

proceedings dated 31.12.2015. The loan approval was to the tune of

Rs.8,18,304/-, which includes subsidy of Rs.2,25,000/-, self

contribution

of

Rs.40,915/-

and

Bank

loan

of

Rs.5,52,389/-. The subsidy amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was sanctioned by

the District Collector, Tirunelveli, by his proceedings dated

30.03.2015 and subsequently, loan was sanctioned by the 5^th

respondent on 13.07.2015. According to the petitioner, the loan

amount has been repaid to the extent of Rs.4,40,510/-, before the

COVID-19 period.

2.While the matter stood thus, the petitioner came to know that

the loan was classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 11.07.2015

and the outstanding loan declared as due was Rs.6,62,772/-.

According to the petitioner, he received a demand notice on

10.12.2020 and followed by the same, final notice was issued on

25.01.2021. Challenging the final notice, dated 25.01.2021, the

petitioner is before this Court.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that there has been a wrong calculation of loan outstanding as on

date and the bank did not take into consideration the moratorium

during the COVID-19 situation. According to him, final notice dated

25.01.2021 is without any basis and therefore, the same is liable to

interfered with. In support of the legal challenge, number of

grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner

stating that the calculation has not been properly done. The

petitioner appears to have range of disputes with the bank in regard

to the charge of interest, incorrect calculation, not giving the

benefit of moratorium for the loan amount etc.,

4.This Court is unable to appreciate as to how on the basis of

certain factual disputes, the petitioner could challenge the

impugned final notice dated 25.01.2021. In a matter like this,

proper course for the petitioner is to approach the civil Court to

establish his rights as to whether he is actually liable for payment

of the amount that has been demanded by the bank. In fact in the

affidavit nothing has been stated or even whispered as to the nature

of loan transaction, conditions imposed and th