IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16395 of 2008 SIYA LAKHAN YADAV, son of Ramhit Yadav, resident of village – Madhopur, Post office – Batho, Police Station – Bahera, Block – Benipur, District – Darbhanga. Versus 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, State Bank of India, Local Head Office – Gandhi Maidan, near Biscomaun Bhawan, Patna-1. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, A.D.B. Benipur Agricultural Branch, Darbhanga. ----------- 03. 07.12.2009 Grievance of the petitioner is that despite recommendation made in his favour by the local District Industries Centre for grant of loan to the petitioner by the State Bank of India for setting up a Chura Unit, necessary loan has not been sanctioned till date. The petitioner has altered his position at the instance of the respondent Bank by filling up earth in the land and incurring huge expenditure due to the same. He has also deposited the so-called margin money with State Bank of India Branch concerned but nothing of the kind came to be done. This compelled the petitioner to file even criminal complaint before the ACJM, Benipur, which is annexure-3 to the writ application. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Nestle India Limited and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 465, on the proposition that the bank is duty bound to grant loan to him because of the promise which was made to him and the alteration of his position due to such a promise. The stand of the respondent Bank in the counter - 2 - affidavit is that the recommendation of the District Industries Centre is only recommendatory in nature. Grant of loan is based on the parameters which are laid down by the bank and the petitioner fulfilling the same. So far as altering the position is concerned, it is stated that there is evidence to show that so- called margin money is not margin money as such but an amount deposited in the savings account of the petitioner and the petitioner instead of meeting the requirements has gone in filing false and frivolous cases against the respondent authorities, which ultimately came to be dismissed as no case was made out. Submission of the learned counsel about the promissory estoppel has no application to the present case. Merely because the Bank stated that they will consider the application for grant of loan, it does not mean that Bank is duty bound to sanction the loan unless the petitioner meets requirements laid down in this regard. There is nothing of the kind in the writ application to show that all the requirements have been met and fulfilled. In fact, a serious dispute has been raised with regard to the bonafide of the applicant and his desire to meet the requirements. It is only an effort to blackmail the respondent Bank in granting him loan. Another aspect which this Court fails to understand is that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the attitude of the respondent State Bank of India in question, there are many - 3 - nationalized banks, which are available and may be more willing to grant loan to the petitioner, if his application is bonafide and it is not only for obtaining loan on one pretext or the other. No case for any direction is made out. The writ application stands dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)