JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.)
(2.) THE petitioner applied for personal loan as back as March 14, 2012. The bank being a State within the meaning of art. 12 of the Constitution of India was under an obligation to dispose of the loan application according to its rules and regulations. It did not intimate the petitioner its decision. Under the circumstances, the petitioner gave a lawyer's notice dated June 12, 2012. Even then the bank chose not to intimate its decision. The aggrieved petitioner has brought this WP. Counsel for the bank submits under instructions that the petitioner was verbally informed that since he had taken personal loan previously, he would not be entitled to a fresh personal loan.
(3.) THERE is no reason for this Court to accept such an unfounded case of the bank. When the petitioner applied submitting application in prescribed form, the bank could not indulge in giving its decision verbally. It has generated this unnecessary litigation by its unacceptable working method. For these reasons, I dispose of the WP ordering as follows. Within a week the bank shall intimate the petitioner its decision on the loan application and pay him Rs. 5,000 costs. Certified xerox.;