# Commissioner v. Secretary Central Salt

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 188
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-02-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55351 of 2009
- **Bench:** Prakash Krishna, Ram Autar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/commissioner-v-secretary-central-salt-41545
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art.226-Writ of
mandamus seeking direction to sanction
Housing loan- without disclosing correct
address-Public
money
can
not
be
disbursed nor the petitioner has legal
right.

Held: Para 18

The facts of the above cases are quite
different from the facts of the present
case, because in the present case the
petitioner
has
sought
a
relief
for
direction to the respondents to grant
loan
as
prayed
for.
Under
these
circumstances
the
above
cases
are
irrelevant so far as the present case is
concerned. The respondents have been
entrusted with public money and they
are not expected to misappropriate the
same or to disburse the said amount
under any loan scheme to a person who
is not eligible or incapable to repay the
same. Moreover the petitioner has got no
statutory right to be granted loan in
question and it is satisfaction of the bank
as to whether the loan can be granted to
the petitioner and he is capable to repay
the same.
Case law discussed:
(2007) 7 SCC 689, (2008) 10 SCC 1, (2008) 11
SCC 278.

## Text

188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
(Annexure 17 to writ petition) are hereby
quashed.

No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM AUTAR SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55351 of 2009

Pt. Nawin Sharma

...Petitioner
Versus
Branch Manager, United Bank of India
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In person

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.M. Asthana
Asgi
S.C.

Constitution of India Art.226-Writ of
mandamus seeking direction to sanction
Housing loan- without disclosing correct
address-Public
money
can
not
be
disbursed nor the petitioner has legal
right.

Held: Para 18

The facts of the above cases are quite
different from the facts of the present
case, because in the present case the
petitioner
has
sought
a
relief
for
direction to the respondents to grant
loan
as
prayed
for.
Under
these
circumstances
the
above
cases
are
irrelevant so far as the present case is
concerned. The respondents have been
entrusted with public money and they
are not expected to misappropriate the
same or to disburse the said amount
under any loan scheme to a person who
is not eligible or incapable to repay the
same. Moreover the petitioner has got no
statutory right to be granted loan in
question and it is satisfaction of the bank
as to whether the loan can be granted to
the petitioner and he is capable to repay
the same.
Case law discussed:
(2007) 7 SCC 689, (2008) 10 SCC 1, (2008) 11
SCC 278.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.A. Singh, J.)

1. By this writ petition the petitioner
has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari
quashing
the
rejection
letter
of
respondents no.1 and 2 dated 11.9.2009
(Annexure No.9) in terms of judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Management,
Assistant
Salt
Commissioner Vs. Secretary Central Salt
Mazdoor Union, (2008) 11 SCC 278 and
has further prayed to issue a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents no.1
to 4 to grant housing loan to the petitioner
within the shortest possible time to be
fixed by this Court as the matter of being
identical nature has been decided by this
Court in C.M.W.P. No.14976 of 2001
which is binding upon the respondents in
terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Official Liquidator Vs.
Dayanand and others reported in (2008)
10 SCC 1.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this
writ petition are that this second writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner
for relief and cause of action given in the
instant writ petition in consonance to the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in
Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board
Vs. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 and
no other writ petition has been filed
earlier before this Court or in any court of
law for the same relief and cause of
action. The petitioner has sought for
1 All] Pt. Nawin Sharma V. Branch Manager, United Bank of India and others
189
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents no.1 to 4 to grant housing
loan as the relevant documents have
already been filed before the respondents
in obedience to the order dated 22.7.2009
passed by this Court in C.M.W.P.
No.33114 of 2009 (Annexure no.3) and
visa-a-visa the case of identical nature has
already been decided by this Court in
C.M.W.P. No.14976 of 2001 (Annexure
No.1)
which
is
binding
upon
the
respondents in terms of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Official
Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others
(2008) 10 SCC 1.

3. The petitioner has further alleged
in his writ petition that the main grievance
of the petitioner is that the petitioner has
applied for a housing loan for purchase of
plot and construction thereon before
respondents no.1 and 2 on 22.6.2009
(Annexure No.2) and due to inordinate
delay in the sanction of the housing loan,
the petitioner approached this Court and
filed first writ petition no.33114 of 2009,
in which an order was passed directing
the petitioner to appear before the Branch
Manager of the Bank alongwith certified
copy of this order and submit the relevant
documents as required by the bank for
processing the application and after
submission of the relevant documents the
bank shall process the application and
take a final decision on the application of
the petitioner (Annexure no.3). The
petitioner then submitted the copy of
order of this Court before the respondents
through speed post on 29.7.2009 with a
request to intimate about the relevant
documents which were required by the
bank for sanction of the loan proposal
(Annexure no.4). The respondents no. 1
and 2 visited the premises of the
petitioner on 3.8.2009 and provided the
copy of documents required to be
submitted
along
with
application
(Annexure No.2) for process of loan. The
petitioner
submitted
the
required
documents on 4.8.2009 in the office of
respondent no.1 (Annexure No.6). The
respondents no.1 and 2 again raised some
twenty six hypothetical objections in
derogation to the order passed by this
Court in the above writ petition with a
malafide intention to create a stumbling
block in the sanction of housing loan
proposal (Annexure no.7). The petitioner
sent letter dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure
No.8) warning the respondents. The
respondents no.1 and 2 then sent letter
dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure No.9) to the
petitioner under which his proposal for
loan was declined. Being aggrieved by the
action of the respondents, the petitioner
filed contempt petition no. 3656 of 2009,
which was rejected by this Court on
14.10.2009 (Annexure No.10) and then
the petitioner filed this writ petition on the
ground that the petitioner wanted to
construct his house, one of basic need for
survival of human beings, but the
respondents rejected his application for
loan.

4. On behalf of the respondents a
counter affidavit has been filed with this
averment that in compliance of order
dated 22.7.2009 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 33114 of 2009 (Pt.
Nawin Sharma Vs. Branch Manager,
United Bank of India and others) the
petitioner did not submit the required
documents
for
processing
his
loan
application and thus the bank had no other
option but to take a final decision as per
the direction of this Court in the above
writ petition and declined to grant housing
loan to the petitioner on the ground of non
submitting the desired documents and
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
non-cooperation. Since the petitioner
himself failed to comply with the order of
this Court passed in above writ petition,
hence the second writ petition should be
dismissed with exemplary cost. The
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as
mentioned is not concerned with the
subject matter in dispute nor is applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner has also failed to mention
his permanent residential address in his
loan application and deliberately avoided
to disclose the same with ulterior motive.
The residential address of 60, Jaipur
House Market, Agra, as mentioned by the
petitioner in his loan application in fact is
one shutter shop and same is not the
residence of the petitioner and most of the
times it has been found closed. The
petitioner has also not disclosed the
details of his immovable property worth
Rs.40 lacs as mentioned in his loan
application nor has submitted the relevant
documents in support of his application in
order to show his financial capacity to
repay the loan and in absence of the
relevant documents, the petitioner has
been found to be ineligible for sanction
and disbursement of loan. A copy of order
passed
by
this
Court
enclosed
as
Annexure No.1 is not identical in any
manner and the petitioner is not entitled
for sanction of loan on the strength of the
order passed in another writ petition in a
different set of facts and circumstances.
The application for housing loan moved
by the petitioner with his wife has been
found incomplete and the petitioner has
also failed to submit the relevant
documents as desired by the bank to
substantiate the details mentioned in his
loan application. The petitioner desires
the sanction of huge amount of housing
loan
without
furnishing
relevant
documents for purpose of processing his
application for loan and is constantly
pressurising the bank for sanction of
housing loan by engaging the bank in
unnecessary and uncalled for litigation.
The petitioner is himself guilty of
disobedience to the order of this Court
passed in earlier writ petition. The Senior
Manager
alogwith
the
Manager
(Operation) of the bank visited the official
place of the petitioner at 60, Jaipur House
Market, Agra, as mentioned in the
application and handed over a letter to
him with details of the required relevant
documents but he did not submit the said
documents. The petitioner has neither
disclosed
his
permanent
residential
address nor has verified his another
immovable properties as mentioned in the
loan application. After spot inspection of
his address it was found desirable to
require relevant necessary documents to
be submitted by the petitioner in order to
process his loan application, and to assess
his capacity to repay huge amount of loan
as the official address of the petitioner
was one shutter shop which was found
closed most of the times and the petitioner
failed to disclose his residential address.
Thus the bank could not take risk of
sanction of a huge amount of housing
loan to the tune of Rs.8 lacs without
taking security. The petitioner tried to
mislead this Court and in this writ petition
also he failed to mention his residential
address. It has come to the knowledge of
the bank that the petitioner has also taken
loan from the Syndicate Bank, Dholpura
Branch, Agra, which is also running
highly irregular on account of default by
the petitioner and thus this writ petition
being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary cost.

5. We have heard the petitioner in
person and Sri K.M. Asthana, learned
1 All] Pt. Nawin Sharma V. Branch Manager, United Bank of India and others
191
counsel for the respondent-bank as well as
perused the record.

6. The petitioner in person has
contended that in identical writ petition
no. 14976 of 2001 (Shri Tulja Ram and
others Vs. Shri Arun Mishra, Vice
President, Punjab National Bank and
others) the Division Bench of this Court
has directed the Punjab National Bank to
grant housing loan to the petitioner in
accordance with the scheme and law
within a period of two months. The copy
of the order dated 19.4.2001 passed in
above Writ Petition No.14976 of 2001
(Annexure No.1) is reproduced below:

"We have heard Sri S.P. Sharma,
learned Advocate for the petitioner and
Sri Tarun Verma, learned advocate for
the respondents.

Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, we are of the view that the
respondents
authorities
shall
grant
housing
loan
to
the
petitioner
in
accordance with the scheme and the law
within two months from the date of
communication of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of
with the aforesaid observation."

7. The learned counsel for the
respondent-bank controverting the above
contention has submitted that copy of
above writ petition no.14976 of 2001 has
not been filed in order to establish that the
facts of both writ petitions are identical.
Moreover no proposition of law has been
laid down by Division Bench of this
Court in above writ petition no. 14976 of
2001 and thus this Court is not bound to
follow any ratio and pass a similar order
in the writ petition in hand.

8. The petitioner has relied on the
principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court
in
Official
Liquidator
Vs.
Dayanand and others, in (2008) 10 SCC
1, wherein the proposition of law has been
laid down which is reproduced below:

"There have been several instances
of different Benches of the High Courts
not following the judgments/orders of
coordinate and even larger Benches. In
some cases, the High Courts have gone to
the extent of ignoring the law laid down
by the Supreme Court without any
tangible reason. Likewise, there have
been instances in which smaller Benches
of the Supreme Court have either ignored
or bypassed the ratio of the judgments of
the
larger
Benches
including
the
Constitution Benches. These cases are
illustrative of non-adherence to the rule of
judicial discipline which is sine qua non
for sustaining the system.

It is distressing to note that despite
several pronouncements on the subject,
there is substantial increase in the
number of cases involving violation of the
basics of judicial discipline. The learned
Single Judges and Benches of the High
Courts refuse to follow and accept the
verdict and law laid down by coordinate
and even larger Benches by citing minor
difference in the facts as the ground for
doing so. Disrespect to the constitutional
ethos and breach of discipline have grave
impact on the credibility of judicial
institution
and
encourages
chance
litigation.

Predictability and certainty is an
important
hallmark
of
judicial
jurisprudence developed in this country in
last six decades and increase in the
frequency of conflicting judgments of the
superior judiciary will do incalculable
harm to the system inasmuch as the courts
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
at the grass roots will not be able to
decide as to which of the judgments lay
down the correct law and which one
should be followed.

In our constitutional set up every
citizen is under a duty to abide by the
Constitution and respect its ideals and
institutions.
Those
who
have
been
entrusted with the task of administering
the
system
and
operating
various
constituents of the State and who take
oath to act in accordance with the
Constitution and uphold the same, have to
set an example by exhibiting total
commitment to the constitutional ideals.
This principle is required to be observed
with greater rigour by the members of
judicial
fraternity
who
have
been
bestowed with the power to adjudicate
upon important constitutional and legal
issues and protect and preserve rights of
the individuals and society as a whole.
Discipline is sine qua non for effective
and efficient functioning of the judicial
system. If the courts command others to
act in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution and rule of law, it is not
possible to countenance violation of the
constitutional principle by those who are
required to lay down the law."

9. We have examined the copy of
order passed by Division of this Court in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14976 of
2001 and found that the facts of writ
petition has not been mentioned in this
order and no principle of law has been
laid down therein as Punjab National
Bank has been directed to grant housing
loan to the petitioner in accordance with
scheme and law. The copy of Writ
Petition No. 14976 of 2001 has also not
been filed in order to enable us to
compare the facts of both writ petitions.
The copy of Scheme has also not been
filed in the present writ petition, under
which the respondents have to grant
housing loan to the petitioner. Thus the
copy of order as Annexure No.1 does not
help the petitioner. This Court in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.33114 of 2009 has
already passed the order, in compliance of
which the petitioner has failed to file
relevant documents as desired by the
officers of United Bank of India. The
order dated 22.7.2009 passed by this
Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.33114 of 2009 is reproduced below:

"In view of the facts of the present
case, no useful purpose will be served in
keeping the writ petition pending and
calling for counter affidavit. Petitioner's
application having been received by the
Bank, petitioner may appear before the
Branch Manager alongwith the certified
copy of this order and submit the relevant
documents as required by the Bank for
processing the application and after
submission of the relevant documents
Bank shall process the application and
take a final decision on the application of
the
petitioner.
Bank
shall
take
appropriate steps on the application of
the petitioner within a period of six weeks.
We make it clear that we are not
expressing any opinion on the entitlement
of the petitioner and it is for the Bank to
consider all aspects of the matter and
shall take appropriate decision.
With the above observation, writ
petition stands disposed of."

10. In view of above order the
petitioner was directed to appear before
the Branch Manager alongwith certified
copy of this order dated 22.7.2009 and
submit relevant documents as required by
the
Bank
for
processing
the
loan
application, and after submission of
1 All] Pt. Nawin Sharma V. Branch Manager, United Bank of India and others
193
relevant documents, bank would have to
process application and take a final
decision on the application of the
petitioner. No entitlement of the petitioner
for loan was expressed in the order and it
was for the bank to consider all aspects of
the matter and take appropriate decision.
The officers of the bank visited the place
of the petitioner and thought it proper to
ask the petitioner to submit twenty six
relevant documents in order to know the
capacity of the petitioner to repay huge
amount of loan, but the petitioner failed to
appear before the branch manager and
submit required twenty six documents in
the bank within the period specified and
thus the bank passed the impugned order
declining the petitioner for sanction of
housing loan.

11. A perusal on record would go to
show that the petitioner mentioned his
residential address as 60, Jaipur House
Market, Agra. It was admittedly not a
residential house but a shutter shop which
was found closed most of the times as
disclosed by the respondents in their
counter affidavit. The petitioner also
failed to disclose his residential address in
this petition and also did not mention the
same even in his rejoinder affidavit. The
respondents thus rightly rejected the
proposal of the petitioner for loan in view
of the facts and circumstances of the case.

12. The respondents in para 11 at
page 13 of counter affidavit specifically
mentioned as below:

"It
has
further
come
to
the
knowledge of the deponent that the
petitioner has also take loan from the
Syndicate Bank, Dholpura Branch, Agra,
which is also running highly irregular on
account of default by the petitioner."

13. The petitioner in para 11 at page
13 of the rejoinder stated as below:

"This particular contention of the
respondent is in derogation to the law
laid down by the Apex Court in Crl.
Appeal No.1191-94 of 2005 in Malay
Kumar Ganguly -v/s- Dr. Sukumar
Mukherjee and others decided on 7th
August, 2009, as they have not adduced
any
evidence
in
relation
to
their
statements."

14. Thus the petitioner deliberately
avoided to reply of above mentioned para
11 at page 13 of counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent-Bank, meaning
thereby it would be presumed that the
petitioner admitted this fact that he took
loan from Syndicate Bank, Dholpura
Branch, Agra, which became highly
irregular on account of default of the
petitioner, because the petitioner failed to
deny this fact in para 11 of his rejoinder
affidavit. Under these circumstances, the
respondent-bank rightly declined the
proposal of the petitioner for loan in view
of the fact that the petitioner concealed
this fact that he had taken loan from
Syndicate Bank, Dholpura Branch, Agra,
which became highly irregular on account
of non-payment.

15. It is the discretion of the bank to
grant loan to eligible person after taking
into consideration the facts as to whether
he would be able to repay the same and in
case the bank finds that the applicant
would not be in a position to pay loan and
his application has been moved with
malafide intention and ulterior motive to
defraud the bank, the bank would be at
liberty to reject the application for loan,
because the bank is the custodian of
public money and it is the duty and
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
responsibility of bank officers to keep the
money of public secured.

16. The principle laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner,
Karnataka
Housing
Board Vs. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC
689, has no application to the present case
and the facts of both cases are quite
different. It has been observed in above
case that once a direction issued by a
competent court, it has to be obeyed and
implemented without any reservation. If
an order passed by a court of law is not
complied with or is ignored, there will be
an end of the rule of law. If a party
against whom such order is made has
grievance, the only remedy available to
him is to challenge the order by taking
appropriate proceedings known to law.
But it cannot be made ineffective by not
complying with the directions on a
specious plea that no such directions
could have been issued by the court.
Upholding of such argument would result
in chaos and confusion and would
seriously affect and impair administration
of justice. In the above case the court has
further observed that from the reading of
the order of the appellant Board, it is
obvious that in spite of clear direction
issued by a competent court, no payment
was made and an express order was
passed to the effect that the writ petitioner
would not be entitled to pay as he had not
worked. The respondent, therefore, had
legitimate
grievance
against
such
direction. The facts of the present case are
quite different from the facts of above
case and the principle laid down in this
regard does not apply to the present case.

17. The petitioner has also relied on
Management,
Assistant
Salt
Commissioner Vs. Secretary, Central
Salt Mazdoor Union, (2008) 11 SCC
278, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has
discussed the provision of labour law
relating to casual labour and held that the
Central Government cannot be held to be
bound by an act of one of its officers. In
terms of the Rules, the job of a licensee
could be taken over directly under Rule
and not beyond the same. When a
statutory action is performed, it must be
done in the manner laid down under
statute or not at all. All actions of the
statutory authorities must be confined
within the four corners of the statute. If
the appellant was not authorised under the
statute to take recourse to Rule 130 of the
Rules for the purpose of engaging salt
mazdoors jointly on behalf of all
licensees, the said action itself must be
held to be a nullity. In such a situation and
particularly in view of the fact that in
making recruitment of respondents, the
quality clauses contained in Articles 14
and 16 were not complied with, the
respondents cannot derive any benefit
therefrom.

18. The facts of the above cases are
quite different from the facts of the
present case, because in the present case
the petitioner has sought a relief for
direction to the respondents to grant loan
as prayed for. Under these circumstances
the above cases are irrelevant so far as the
present
case
is
concerned.
The
respondents have been entrusted with
public money and they are not expected to
misappropriate the same or to disburse the
said amount under any loan scheme to a
person who is not eligible or incapable to
repay the same. Moreover the petitioner
has got no statutory right to be granted
loan in question and it is satisfaction of
the bank as to whether the loan can be
1 All] Bishop Johnson School & College & anr. V. The Excise Commissioner & others
195
granted to the petitioner and he is capable
to repay the same.

19. The public money entrusted to
the bank's cannot be permitted to be
misutilised. Respondent bank is bound by
the norms set up for the purposes of grant
of loan. No writ or direction can be issued
as prayed for to grant loan if the bank is
not satisfied with the credit worthiness of
the petitioner.

20. In view of the above discussions,
the respondents have rightly refused to
concede the proposal of the petitioner for
loan especially in view of the fact that the
petitioner has failed to disclose his
residential address either in the papers
produced for loan or in this writ petition.
He has also failed to furnish the
documents as required by the respondents
in order to grant loan to him. In his
rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has also
failed to deny the allegations made in para
11 of the counter affidavit wherein it has
been mentioned specifically that the
petitioner has taken loan from Syndicate
Bank, Dholpura Branch, Agra, which is
also running highly irregular on account
of default of the petitioner.

21. Under these circumstances, this
Court is not inclined to allow this writ
petition, which is devoid of merits and
based
on
imaginary
grounds.
Consequently
this
writ
petition
is
dismissed. But no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE R.A. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39914 of 2009

Bishop Johnson School and College and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The Excise Commissioner, State of U.P.
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.D. Saunders

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Chaturvedi (Advocate General)
Sri S.P. Kesharwani (Addl. C.S.C.)
Sri Mukesh Prasad

Constitution of India, Article 226-view of
U.P. Number and Location of Excise
Shop, (forth Amendment) Rules 2008
Rule 5 (4)-challenged-the restrictions of
100 meters-prescribed by judgment of
Apex Court in Manoj Kumar Dwivedi
Case-reduced to 50 meters without any
rational basis-such amendment in rules
clearly an eye wash and contrary to very
object and purpose of rule making
authority-deserves to stuck down being
unreasonable and arbitrary.

Held: Para 36

From the foregoing discussions, it is
clear that amendments as made by the
State in Rule 5(4) by 2008 amendments,
is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary.
It clearly defeats the very purpose and
object of the policy of the Statute and
the purpose for which the State was
clothed with the rule making power to
effectuate the policy. It is not the case of
the
respondents
that
they
have
withdrawn the policy or there is no more
policy of the Statute that excise shop