WP(C) 690/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. R.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J. Handique, learne d State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. K.K. Bhatra, le arned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. These writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal together, as prayed f or by the learned counsel for the parties, as all these writ petitions relates t o non disbursement of the loan by the respondent bank to the petitioners under P rime Minister Rojgar Yojona (PMRY) pertaining to the years 2005-06; 2006-07 and 2007-08. It is the case of the petitioners that though their projects were approved by th e District Industry Centre as well as the Task Force for the purpose of getting the benefit under the PMRY Scheme for the aforesaid years, the respondent bank d id not extend the financial assistance, as required under the Scheme. The petit ioners, therefore, have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities, mo re particularly, the respondent bank to release the financial assistance in resp ect of the projects, which were approved by the Task Force. The respondent bank contested the proceeding by filing affidavit contending inte r alia that the projects submitted by the petitioners were duly scrutinized by t he bank and having found that those are not viable, the bank did not extend the financial assistance under the said Scheme. It is also the contention of the res pondent bank that under the guidelines issued for the said Scheme, the bank is a uthorized to take the credit decision on the basis of viability of each of the p rojects and such decision was taken keeping in view the viability of the project proposed to be finalized. The further contention of the respondent bank is tha t the said Scheme, namely PMRY, has already been discontinued. The State respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition have taken the stand that t he PMRY Scheme has since been discontinued and a new Scheme has been formulated. It appears from the materials made available in the writ petitions that certain projects of the petitioners were approved by the District Industry Centre as wel l as Task Force for finance under the PMRY Scheme and accordingly those proposal s were sent to the respondent bank for finance. The respondent bank thereafter, scrutinized the credit worthiness of those projects by scrutinizing the viabilit y and took a decision not to finance the projects, as those were found to be not viable. Under the PMRY Scheme, the bank is authorized to take their credit dec ision on the basis of viability of each project, as cleared by the Task Force. That apart, the said Scheme under which the petitioners’ projects were approved for financing by the Task Force has already been discontinued. That being the position, the relief claimed in the present petitions cannot be g ranted and hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. It would, however, not preclude the petitioners from applying before the appropr iate authority for granting the benefit under the new Scheme and in case, the pe titioners’ names and projects are approved by the appropriate authority and sent to the respondent bank for finance, the same shall definitely be considered by the respondent bank in terms of the Scheme formulated for that purpose. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.