M/S Gotam Dal Mill v. The State Bank Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6221 of 2013 =========================================================== M/s Gotam Dal Mill through its proprietor, namely Manoj Kumar Gotam, son of Late Jagdeo Singh, resident of Village - Dharampur, Police Station - Athmalgola, District - Patna -8032011 .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Bank of India through its Regional Manager, Regional Office Situated at Uma Complex, Frazer Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District and Town - Patna

2. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Circle Situated at Uma Complex, Frazer Road, P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, District and Town - Patna

3. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Situated at Anta - Ghat, P.S - Pirbahore, District and Town - Patna

4. The Branch Manager, State Bank OF India, Athmalgola Branch, P.S. - Athmalgola, District - Patna

5. The Field Officer, State Bank of India, Athmalgola Branch, P.S. - Athmalgola, District - Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. K.K. Sinha, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 28-10-2016 The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent bank to issue sanction order with respect to loan amounting to Rs. 20 lacs ( Rs. Twenty lacs only) approved and recommended by the General Manager of the District Industry Centre, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the "D.I.C.", Patna) and forwarded to the said Branch of the S.B.I. time and again under "Prime Minister Employment Guarantee Programme" (hereinafter referred to as the "P.M.E.G.P") for sanction of loan amount in lieu of establishment of "Dal

Patna High Court CWJC No.6221 of 2013 dt.28-10-2016 2/2 Mill" in the name and style of "Gotam Dal Mill".

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the writ petition and places reliance on para-5 of the counter affidavit to submit that the loan sought by the petitioner was not sanctioned for the reasons enumerated therein and upon the finding that the proposal of the petitioner was not viable.

4. The aforesaid stand of the respondents has not been controverted by the petitioner as no rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 28.10.2016 Transmission Date N.A.