IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8796 of 2009 M/S DWARAKADHISH AGRO PVT.LTD. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the UCO Bank: Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, Advocate For the U.O.I. : Mr. Satya Prakash,SC Govt of India For the State : Mr.Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 9 2 31.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to release and disburse a sum of Rs.39.61 lacs as financial assistance approved by the respondent Union of India. It appears that the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India had floated a scheme for technology upgradation/establishment/modernization of food processing industries and provided financial assistance for the industries found eligible. The petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid scheme made investment and sought assistance through the State Nodal Agency after investment of promoter contribution and finance obtained from the respondent Bank. The petitioner’s unit was duly inspected by the District Industries Centre and found the same fit for financial assistance. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Industries by his letter no.2065 dated 16.6.2006 forwarded the proposal for financial assistance to the petitioner unit to the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Food Processing along with recommendation of the State Nodal Agency as would be evident from Annexure-4. The petitioner asserts that the commercial production 2 started in his unit on 1.4.2006 and he was granted certificate of registration by the District Industries Centre. The State Government and the Union Government asked for documents which the petitioner provided in time as would appear from letter dated 10.1.2007 contained in Annexure-6. The petitioner submits that the Central Government has sanctioned disbursement of Rs.39.61 lacs as would appear from Annexure-7. However, both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearing for the Bank state that the aforesaid amount has not yet been transferred to the Bank. Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, learned counsel for the Bank submits that the aforesaid amount is a mere estimated eligible grant. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that the aforesaid fact needs to be verified. The grievance of the petitioner is that in case the aforesaid amount is transferred in the Bank account for being paid as subsidy to the petitioner, it would be in a position to liquidate the bank loan. The petitioner submits that the Bank cannot refuse to disburse the aforesaid amount merely because the petitioner unit has been declared as Non Performing Asset. The petitioner further asserts that Bank would not require to disburse the aforesaid amount rather it would adjust the amount against the outstanding loan of the petitioner and in any way the Bank will not suffer as the amount is of Central assistance based on the investment coming from the Union government itself. In view of the facts noted above, this court is of the view 3 KHAN that the petitioner should approach the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Food Processing Industries, respondent no.2 as well as the Executive Director, UCO Bank, respondent no.8. In case the petitioner approaches them and files a representation, the same would be disposed of by a speaking order within a period of ten weeks from the date of filing of the representation. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)