Patna High CourtCWJC/17599/2011dismissed

Rajesh Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

2015-09-22Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17599 of 2011 ======================================================

1. Rajesh Kumar Son Of Janmdev Mahto Resident Of Village Dhobitala, Bajalpura, P.O. And P.S. Teghra, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union Of India Through The Secretary Khadi Gram Udyog Govt. Of India

2. The Secretary Khadi Gram Udyog, Govt. Of India

3. The State Of Bihar

4. The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

5. The Director, Industry Khadi Gram Village Industries Commission, Bihar, Patna

6. The Assistant Director, Industry Khadi Gram Village Industries Commission, Bihar, Patna

7. The D.M. Begusarai (District Magistrate Begusarai)

8. The D.D.C. , Begusarai

9. The G.M. District Industry Centre, Begusarai

10. The G.M. Central Bank Of India, Mumbai

11. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank Of India, Patna

12. The Regional Manager, Central Bank Of India, Saharsa

13. The Branch Manager , Central Bank Of India Teghra, Begusarai .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Jha Sc14 Mr. Anshuman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 22-09-2015 Writ petition was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution. On restoration, it has been listed before me for disposal. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this application, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondent Bank to provide loan for him under the Pradhan Mantri Employment Guarantee Programme.

It is submitted that the State respondents had approved the feasibility of the unit and forwarded sanction/approval to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.17599 of 2011 (3) dt.22-09-2015 2/2 respondent Bank. Yet, the loan was not made available to the petitioner.

From the communication dated 15.7.2011, it appears the Bank returned the papers of the petitioner to the State on the ground that for the Financial Year 2009-10, excess applications were forwarded to the bank which were being returned. The excess applications include the application of the petitioner. A reason therefore has been assigned. After lapse of so many years and in view of the reasons appearing from the aforesaid communication, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction as prayed in the application.

The writ application is dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U