IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3149 of 2010 1. SMT.PRIYANKA SINGH W/O AJAY KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL./MOH.- SOUTH EKOUNA, P.O.- EKOUNA, DISTT.- BHOJPUR ( BIHAR ) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA, THROUGH THE OMBUSTMAN ( LOK PAL ) 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DISTT.- PATNA 3. THE BRANCH MANGER, BANK OF INDIA G.T. ROAD, BRANCH- ARAH, P.O.- ARAH, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER DISTT.- INDUSTRY CENTRE, BHOJPUR, ARRAH ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh. For the State :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.P. I. For the Respondent Bank :- Mr. Binay Kumar Singh. For the Reserve Bank of India :0 Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha. ---- 3 18/03/2010 Petitioner wants a direction upon the respondent Bank i.e. Bank of India, G.T. Road, Arrah Branch, Arrah to release a sum of rupees five lacs as loan which was sanctioned to her under the Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (hereinafter called the P.M.E.G.P.). The petitioner claims that she fulfills all the eligibility criteria for release of this loan amount as an assistance to set up a Sattu Besan manufacturing industry. Since the respondent Bank did not release the amount in favour of the petitioner, she approached the High Court seeking the above relief. - 2 - A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank. Their stand is that only one member of the family is entitled for financial assistance. In the present case the husband of the petitioner has already been granted subsidy and loan under the said scheme from Punjab National Bank, Udwant Nagar Branch and in view of the above the petitioner is not entitled for second funding under the terms and conditions of the policy which has been brought on record as Annexure-R/1. Based on the stand of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner now states at the Bar that the petitioner is a divorcee from her husband and she has no more relation at all. This fact is not corroborated by any evidence but is only a statement which cannot be accepted on the face value. This is a matter which requires verification. Learned counsel for the Bank in rebuttel to the above statement informs the Court that the petitioner is the guarantor in the loan taken by her husband and, probably, to overcome the said impediment in the way of the petitioner such a statement has been made. The policy being what it is, the Bank is not required - 3 - to release the loan amount in favour of the petitioner since the husband of the petitioner is already a beneficiary under the said scheme. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)