IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.929 of 2005 Arbind Kumar S/o Late Babulal Sah, resident of Village- Chack Hussain, P.S.-Khusroopur, District- Patna …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Industry Department, New Secretariate, Patna, 2. The Director Industries, Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna, 3. The General Manager, District Industries, Patna, 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khusrupur, Branch, Khusrupur, Patna ----------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nilima Sinha, Advocate For the S.B.I. : Mr. Mukund Jie, Advocate For the Sate : Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, A.C. to G.P 17 …………………………….. 5 26.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State Bank of India and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make correction with regard to the description of respondent in paragraph 1 of this writ application. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondent no.4, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khusrupur, Branch, Khusrupur, Patna to return the certificate of the petitioner and pay damages etc. It has been submitted on behalf of the 2 petitioner that he was sanctioned and disbursed the loan of Rs.25,000/-by the respondent-Bank under the scheme of Self Employment for Educated Unemployed Youth in the year 1984. However, despite of the fact that the whole amount alongwith interest has been paid back to the Bank concerned, the original educational certificates of the petitioner, kept by the Bank, is not being returned despite several efforts made by the petitioner although there was no such provision for demanding and keeping such certificate under the Scheme. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a letter, which has been obtained under the Right to Information Act, written by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Patna addressed to the Joint Director (Industries), Bihar, Patna stating that it has been found during the enquiry that the Banks are keeping the original educational certificate of the applicant which is not proper. However, a letter of the Branch Manger of the concerned Bank has also been appended, wherein it has been categorically stated that on verification of records it 3 has been found that certificate of the petitioner has not been kept as security with the loan document. A counter affidavit has also been filed, taking a clear-cut stand that no such certificate has been taken by the Bank and the petitioner has already paid the entire amount which was due to him on 31.07.2010. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent-Bank that under the scheme, actually everything was to be scrutinized and recommended by the Director Industries Centre Patna and upon such recommendation loan amount were being sanctioned. Under the scheme there was no occasion for the Bank to keep the original certificate as security as the State use to stand as guarantor for such loan. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, as there is specific denial by the Bank regarding keeping the certificate of the petitioner while sanctioning and disbursing the loan under the concerned scheme and the fact that there is no evidence like any receipt etc. having been produced by the petitioner in this regard indicating that such 4 documents were deposited by him and that remained with the Bank, it would not be possible for this Court to give a positive direction. As a result, this application is dismissed. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)