- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the sanctioned loan to the petitioner under the Credit-cum-Subsidy Policy of Gramin Awaas Yojana, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development floated a scheme known as Credit-cum-Subsidy Scheme (for brevity the scheme) for rural housing in the year 1999 (Annexure P1). This scheme is a part-credit and part-subsidy based and is in alternative to the Indira Awaas Yojna redefining the role of Government from that of 'provider' to a 'facilitator' as envisaged in the National Housing and Habitat Policy, 1998. The scheme targets to envelop that group of rural households which has annual income of. up to Rs. 32,000/- only. The rural households below poverty line has been given preference. The respective States have been given the prerogative to identify beneficiaries under the scheme and the modus operandi to adopt such beneficiaries. The implementation agency could either be the State Housing Boards/Corporations or any other specified commercial organisation etc. A ceiling of subsidy has been fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per household and the upper limit of loan for the purpose of construction has been fixed at Rs. 40,000/- per household. The State Government has been given free hand to identify the agency from whom the loan is to be procured and disbursed. The overall monitoring of the scheme has been given in the hand of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Accordingly the Punjab National Bank, respondents 3 to 6 (for brevity, 'the PNB') has been selected as the agency for procuring, disbursing and monitoring the 'scheme'.
(3.) The petitioner, who claims to be a poor, uneducated and sole earning member of his family, has applied for a loan of Rs.40,000/- for construction of a house on a small plot which he had inherited from the ancestral property after the death of his father. He claimed that he fulfilled all the requirements of the scheme. The application was made to the PNB which was the agency identified by the State Government. The credentials of the petitioner were accordingly investigated and a subsidy of Rs. 10,000/- was released. After the grant of subsidy of Rs. 10,000/- respondent No. 5, the then Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Bithmada Branch, District Hisar asked the petitioner to submit certain more documents such as relevant jamabandi and an affidavit stating that he was owner of the plot where the house was proposed to be constructed along with the report of the Halqa Patwari counter-singed by the Tehsildar, accompanied by a site plan, estimate and a copy of the ration card. All the aforementioned documents are furnished to the bank on 25-6-2002. Respondent No. 5 sought verification from the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tohana. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tohana certified that the petitioner has a running crop loan account with the bank and that was running satisfactorily. The petitioner was then asked by the respondent No. 5 to mortgage his plot in favour of the bank. Accordingly, the petitioner executed a mortgage deed on 26-6-2002. On 1-7-2002 bank respondent No. 3 sanctioned the loan in favour of the petitioner and issued a certificate (Annexure- P4) by entering and confirming the mutation in its favour. However, the petitioner was not disbursed the loan and a letter dated 27-7-2002 to that effect was addressed by the bank respondent No. 3. It was alleged in the letter that the petitioner owned a residential house and that he had obtained some loan from Co-operative Society Gajuwala which had not been repaid. He was also asked to submit a no due certificate of the society. On the basis of the aforementioned lacunas respondent bank cancelled the sanctioned loan.;