R. K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) We have heard Sri P. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sarita Singh learned standing counsel.
(2.) This case arises out of the following facts as revealed from the record including order of the Consumer Forum. 2.1. It appears that respondent No. 2 applied for a loan of Rs. 40.000 for the purpose of installing an electrical tube-well from Prathma Bank/Syndicate Bank. According to the Consumer Forum, Syndicate Bank did not appeal before it. Junior Engineer of the Block appeared before the Consumer Forum and made it clear that Rs. 17,000 is required for installation of the electrical tube-well and boring work is to be done free of charges. Syndicate Bank did not file any reply. The petitioner, Prathma Bank denied that there was any scheme with it to grant loan upto Rs. 40,000. The Consumer Forum considering the facts ordered for grant of the loan of Rs. 17.000 after completing all the formalities. 2.2 The scheme was in connection with installation of tube-well by him for agricultural purposes. At the time of such scheme, the bank was associated with the Government and promised to look to the welfare of the poor persons in advancing loans. In the instant case the Block Development Officer also recommended the necessary papers for grant of loan of Rs. 40.000. The Branch Manager of the bank has also made recommendation but the higher authorities of the Bank adopted dillydallying tactic and did not sanction the loan. Then. Smt. Dolli Agarwal. respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum after going through the records was of the view that there was deficiency of service on the part of the bank and ordered that Rs. 17,000 should be paid towards loan. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this writ petition has been filed by the bank-petitioner, instead of choosing the State Consumer Forum. 2.3. This writ petition has remained pending since 1990. It is not advisable now to relegate the petitioner to approach State Consumer Forum and we proceed to decide this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Mr. Singhal has submitted that there is no relationship of consumer between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner as respondent No. 2 does not fall within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. He further submitted that mere opening of the account does not entitle the respondent No. 2 to take a loan.;