S/L 25 10.07.2026 Court. No. 25 Sourav WPA 16779 of 2025 Subhankar R. Sankrityayan Vs. The State Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee … for the petitioner. Mr. Debashis Saha Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal Ms. Sucheta Pal Mr. Jyotishman Sarkar … for the respondent no. 1/SBI. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 5 for disbursing the remaining loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has obtained personal loan of Rs. 9,28,000/- from the respondent bank which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner under the scheme of the SBI personal loan vide account no. 43927275328. After the sanction of the said amount, the respondent authorities have only disbursed an amount of Rs. 7,28,000/- by keeping the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the same was not disbursed in the loan account of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has made several representations to the authorities but the bank has not considered the same and the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 3. Now the petitioner submits that after filing of the writ application, the bank has disbursed the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the account of the petitioner on March 26, 2026. He further submits that though the loan was 2 sanctioned on March 18, 2025 but the bank has only disbursed an amount of Rs. 7,28,000/- by keeping the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and as such, the petitioner has suffered damages and he prays for an order by directing the bank to pay the damages to the petitioner for not disbursing the further loan amount to the petitioner due to which the petitioner could not utilize the loan amount. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the bank has filed the report after serving the copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the bank submits that the petitioner had earlier loan with other bank and when the respondent bank came to know with regard to the earlier loan obtained by the petitioner from the other bank, accordingly, the bank has not disbursed the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and subsequently, the petitioner after filing of the present writ application cleared the loan amount of the other bank, has informed to the State Bank of India and immediately, the bank has released the said amount. 5. He further submits that as the bank has already released the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and thus nothing remains in the present writ application and the writ application is to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record and the report filed by the Bank. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is that the bank has not disburse the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and prays for a direction for 3 disbursement of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. During pendency of the writ application, the bank has disbursed the loan amount in the account of the petitioner and the petitioner admitted the same. It is the specific case of the bank in the report that the petitioner has earlier obtained personal loan from the other banks and that was not cleared and when the petitioner informed the bank that the petitioner has cleared the loan amount with other bank, immediately, the bank has released the said loan amount. 8. Considering the above, this Court finds that the petitioner has received the further loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and as such, the grievance of the petitioner has fulfilled. As regards the damages, this Court does not find any circumstances to pass any order for grant of damage to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)