1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4369 OF 2009 Rehana Sultana w/o Abdul Mateen, R/o-Street No.2, Near Alama Iqbal School, Dukhi Nagar, Old Jalna, Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Union of India, Through the Ministry of Micro Small And Medium Enterprises (MOMSME), New Delhi. 2) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Industry Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 3) The Task Force Committee, Through its Member Convenor, General Manager, District Industries Center, Jalna, Dist-Jalna, 4) The President, Bank of Maharashtra, (Govt. of India Undertaking), Lokmangal, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune, Dist-Pune, 5) The Branch Manager, (Branch No.815), Bank of Maharashtra, Old Jalna, Dist-Jalna, 2 6) Shri. Abhay Patil, Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Old Jalna, Dist-Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.M.S. Choudhari Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.Alok Sharma, with Shri. K.B. Choudhari, standing counsel for Respondent No.1. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2. Shri.S.V. Adwant Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner seeks direction to Respondent No.5 Bank to sanction loan of Rs.9.83 lakhs as recommended by the Respondent No.3 under Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (for short "PMEGP"). 3. The Respondent No.5 Bank filed affidavit in reply. It is contended by the Respondent No.5 3 Bank that it is not correct on the part of the Petitioner to say that the recommendation of the Task Force Committee is binding on the Bank to disburse loan to the Petitioner. It is contended that the Petitioner did not produce necessary documentary evidence. Under the scheme itself the Bank is entitled to assess the viability of each of the projects and take a proper decision about the creditworthiness of the said entrepreneur, who is seeking financial assistance. The deponent further contents that the proposal of the Petitioner was returned by Respondent No.5 to D.I.C., Jalna as the quota for advances under the said scheme was completed. 4. The counsel for Respondent No.5 placed on record Guidelines in respect of Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP). 5. We have considered the documents placed on record, reply filed by the Respondents. We find that the Bank has right to assess the viability of 4 the project and after scrutinizing the viability of project, take decision in respect of disbursement of loan amount. We do not find any glaring violation of procedure on the part of the Respondent Bank. 6. In exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for the Court to cause interference into the matter. The Petition is devoid of merits. It is rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp4369.09