Md. Haidar Ali v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14036 of 2013 =========================================================== Md. Haidar Ali son of Md. Jalaluddin, Resident of Mohalla - Milki Mohalla, Police Station - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, Director, Industry Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur

3. Khadi and Village Industries Commission, through its Chairman, New Delhi

4. The District Khadi Gramodyog Officer, Bihar State Khadi Gramodyog Board, District Office Katira, Ara, District - Bhojpur

5. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Police Station - Ara Nawada, Station Road, Ara, District - Bhojpur

6. The Loan Manager, Punjab National Bank, Police Station - Ara Nawada, Station Road, Ara, District - Bhojpur .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mr. AAG 15 For the PNB : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, SC Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dhanendra Choubey, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-09-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to sanction and grant loan to set up a Garment Industry under the Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme ("P.M.E.G.P." for short).

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called. On the earlier occasion i.e. on 10.09.2018 as well the petitioner was not represented.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that

Patna High Court CWJC No.14036 of 2013 dt.17-09-2018 2/2 upon enquiry it came to light that the petitioner had already availed the loan from the Central Bank of India, Ara for setting up Aadhunik Garments Udhyog and had already availed subsidy of Rs. 7,35,000/- being application I.D. 597 dated 22.12.2010 in the name of Md. Ali. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted a false affidavit for the purpose of obtaining loan.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 appears and has been heard.

5. Having regard to the stand of the respondent-Bank in the counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 20.09.2018 Transmission Date N.A.