Raj Kumar Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7420 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Raj Kumar Singh.

2. Jitendra Kumar Singh Both Sons of Ram Kalewar Singh Resident of villageMadhurapur, Police Station- Hathouri, District- Samastipur. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

3. The Block Development Officer, Shivaji Nagar, Police- Station- Shivaji Nagar, District- Samastipur.

4. The Circle Officer, Shivaji Nagar, Police Station- Shivajinagar, DistrictSamastipur.

5. Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Samastipur through Regional Manager.

6. The Branch Manager, Branch Ballipur, Bihar, Gramin Bank.

7. Bihar Gramin Bank through General Manager, At + P.O+ P.S+ Distt- Begusarai. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : MR. JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH, ADV For the Respondent/s : Mr. PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH- SC12 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 02-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Seeking exception to the order dated 15.02.2016, passed by the learned writ Court in C.W.J.C No. 7420 of 2014, this appeal has been filed under clause-10 of the Letters Patent. Petitioners sought loan under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme (K.C.C) from Bihar Gramin Bank. In the eligibility condition for grant of loan it was mentioned that the person concerned should be a farmer

Patna High Court LPA No.841 of 2016 dt.02-05-2017 2/2 and cultivator. It seems that the Bihar Gramin Bank sought information and come to the conclusion that the petitioners are engaged in private job outside the State of Bihar. Based on this consideration, their application was rejected by the Bihar Gramin Bank. The learned writ Court found that there is disputed question of fact with regard to the vocation of the petitioners and this question cannot be gone into in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, disposed of the application of the petitioners granting liberty to the petitioners to approach any appropriate forum as may be available to them in accordance with law for redressal of their grievance.

We see no error in the order of the learned writ court warranting reconsideration.

This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 04.05.2017 Transmission Date N.A