IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION <U/A 227 <T(S °? S> pp 2008 A PETITIONER : fc .^^ ^•'/f)-1-" Ai/A""'" Amit Jaiswal, S/0 Shri Vijay Jaiswal, aged about 31 years, Proprietor of Jaiswal Stone Crusher, R/0 Village- Ramanujnagar, District- Sarguja, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Gramodyog r<^ \^ _ i''u , s^V ^ Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, ^ ^ ..cP^ ^^ Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ^., (2) Chhattisgarh Khadi and Gramodyog Board, through its Chairman, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ^. (3) Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, through its Manager, Head Office, Vivek Complex. Sagam Gali, Ambikapur, District- Sargtfja, (C.G.^ ^, ^4) Seni'or Manager, Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ambikapur, Distnct- Sarguja, (C.G.) WRIT^ETITION U/A 22^ OF THE CONSmTUTION OF INDIA ?^1-^ Et^ HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH WRIT PETiTiON(Cl N0.66S6 ResDondents Versus AmitJaiswal State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRITPETITIONUNDERAgT!CLE2260FTHECONSTITUTIONOFINDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri SyniiSahu; Advocate for the petjtioner. Shri P.K;Bliadi|ri^Panei Lawyer Tor the State. ShriP.ife^l^an^AdvGiGateifortherespondentNo.2. SNr(N.NiiS^,.%dwocatg?or;a^e^f»spond6ntNo.3&4.^ 2. :' ^ : pass®d^riW^^<^^B^(,'2blO).:••• : '•r:';.;:.: The petitioner, 6y this petition, seeks a writ quasHjng tKe ietter dated 12/4QD08 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Senior'Manager of respondent Banlt informeci the Regional Manager,i@aiKuh pur, Suiguja Kshetriya Gramin BanHthiat "Margin Monsy Schemejlftas come to an end on 1/4^2008, thus no ioan can be sancfiQned uiiader the said scheme. Secondly, thejpetitioner seeks a diretdion to|fhe respondents to disburse the ioan amount in favour of the| pefltisiner as perthemaFginmoneysGhe'me, r' ]:• ' ; :• ^ ll - Shri Roy, !eaipedcpunsejyaj:>pearing1w1herespprrdent|No.3^ submits thatthe petitionerhas:madefanapplicationfor!(^nyf|der "Margin Money Scheme" and befbrelsanctfon of taan, thS Mar|gin MQney Scheme was clpsefj on 1|^(X)8.i A^^ |t>^ Regipnal Manag^r ¥)fitti& communication- dated 12;4(2Q08;:i ttie Bank was infcOT'Bed^nQt.tQiaavat-tgearioanXindeiFthe saidiSGt?e(t|ei, '^::*^^''''-: -.'- — : .'—:-': - ..: • : ••:•• .: '-" •:-^ ...li'i .;- toanyperson.,.;::. •"; "• •y:",;'. : .•;ll,.i'. '.. 'i- • :'.Ji:-^:ii!S.'l ,u -fc. l..-.^._^ asnok 3. in the case cin hand, the loan was never sanctioned by the respondent Bank and as such there is no merit in the case. The petition may be dismissed on consideration of the facts, pleadings in the case and on hearing the ieamed counsel for the petitioner. The High Court cannotdireetenforcentent of any right, which is not in existence as the petitioner wouid-clalig advancement of loan under the seheme from the Bankto considerand to provide ioan. In the case oriihand, there Is no question ofgranting ofloan under the closedseheme. Thus, the petition is frivolous, misusepfjudieial process and is aceordingiy disrnissed with eosts, Tbe cost is quaiified to bejRs. 3,OOQ/- payal3!eto.. ietelvocateWelfare}?und of the hligh Court Bar Associatibn. ; s^^w Judse ibotri