PRADIP KUMAR DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a classic example of arbitrary action and apathetic attitude of a public sector financial institution, a Nationalised Bank, shown to the petitioner in releasing financial assistance asper socially benevolent scheme adopted by the Government. The petitioner is an educated unemployed youth and after passing the H.S.L. C. Examination in the year 1997, the petitioner could not prosecute further studies due to financial hardship and was availing for necessary opportunity to be self-employed. With a view to promoting economic justice to the people of the country as enshrined in the Constitution, as per the Constitutional scheme and directives, the Government of India adopted certain policies to provide self-employment to needy people particularly, covering the rural mass of the country. In augmenting such process, the Government of India adopted certain suitable schemes out of which 'the Prime Minister's Rojgar Yojana (P.M.R.Y.) is also one of the same. The said scheme came into force with effect from 2nd Oct., 1993 commemorating the Gadhi Jayanti. As per the terms of the said scheme, the educated unemployed youth of age group of18 and 35 years is entitled to avail a loan upto Rs. 1,00,000.00.on his case on being sponsored by the State Industries Department.

(2.) With a view to availing the aforesaid opportunities under the Prime Minister's Rojgar Yojana, the petitioner approached the District Industries Centre, Kamrup and submitted a scheme for the purpose of establishing a manufacturing unit of Ice/Milk Candy at Bishnupur, Guwahati. The respondent No. 2 after consideration of the feasibility of the scheme submitted by the petitioner was satisfied that the scheme would be a successful one if implemented properly and accordingly, recommended his case to the respondent-Bank for providing financial accommodation of Rs. 90,040.00. The respondent No. 2 vide letter No. D.I.C./K(IV) 117/95/2032 dated 30.11.1995 forwarded the application of the petitioner under the aforesaid Prime Minister's Rojgar Yojana Schemeto the Branch Manager of the Karnarpatty respondent-Bank. In the said letter, it is specifically stated that as per the approval of the Task Force Committee on scrutiny of the proposal under the Prime Minister's Rojgar Yojana, 1995-96, the case of the petitioner was recommended for providing him financial accommodation of Rs. 90,040.00 for establishing an Ice/Milk Candy manufacturing unit at Bishnupur. It is also stated therein that the scheme was found technically feasible and economically viable and requested the Branch Manager of the Bank to accord necessary sanction at the earliest. After the recommendation of the case of the petitioner to the Bank, as stated above, the petitioner was directed by the Manager of the Bank vide letter dated 12.12.1995 to call the Manager of the Bank on or before the 1st week of Jan., 1996. By the said letter, the receipt of the recommendation from the respondent No. 2 has also been acknowledged by the Bank. Upon receipt of the said instructions from the Bank, the petitioner met the Branch Manger of the Bank in the 1st week of Jan., 1996 and on several occasions there- after. But taking the plea one or the other, the Bank authority did not sanction the loan. The petitioner, in the meantime,also undergone necessary training programme as conducted by the District Industries Centre, Guwahati under the Prime Minister's Rojgar Yojana in order to equip himself for the purpose of setting up the unit.Strongly enough vide letter dated 6.8.1997, the Manger of the Bank intimated the respondent No. 2 that they have misplaced the necessary papers relating to the loan of the petitioner and requested the District Industries Centre to submit a duplicate copy thereof. In compliance of the said request, the District Manager, District Industries Centre vide letter No D.I.C./K (IV) 117/96- 97/P.M.RY./Pt. ix/5997-98 dated 12.8.1997 forwarded a duplicate copy of the set of documents to the Branch Manger of the Bank for doing the needful. Thereafter also,the petitioner approached time and again the Bank authority who again exhibited similar treatment and ultimately, being disgusted with their negative attitude has approached this Court by filing this writ petition for necessary orders.

(3.) The respondent No. 3, through its Manager. Guwahati Branch submitted an affidavit-in-opposition. The crux of the contention of the Bank authority as raised in their affidavit-in-opposition, inter alia, is that although the loan was provisionally sanctioned, the petitioner did not meet the bank authority within the validity period i.e. within 31.12.1996 and the petitioner came to the Bank on 5.8.1997 and on scrutiny of the papers, it was found that the trade license dated 12.4.1998 is in the name of the petitioner and another person. which is irregular.