IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1128 of 2010 ***** 1. MITHILESH KUMAR S/O LATE NAGENDRA SINGH R/O VILL.- DOGHARA, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, PATNA 2. CANARA BANK THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, BANGLORE-560002 3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE- LOV-KUSH TOWER, PATNA-1 4. BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, BIHTA BRANCH, PATNA 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRY CENTRE, PATNA …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 26.2.2010. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. The Branch Manager of Canara Bank of Bihta Branch is present in person. Counter affidavit has now been filed on behalf of Canara Bank. The Court is informed that there was a communication gap between the Regional Office and the Branch Manager that is why the counter affidavit was not filed despite earlier direction of the Court. The stand of the respondent Bank as well as the State is that the concerned branch has informed the authorities that the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner cannot be acted upon or processed in view of the fact that the request of the petitioner does not fall in the - 2 - service area in which the branch operates in so far as it relates to PMEGP Scheme. If that be so, they are not bound to sanction the loan in favour of the petitioner. The respondent State authorities of the District Industries Centre have now issued a fresh letter informing the petitioner that his claim for sanction of loan will have to be processed by the Punjab National Bank, Simri Branch, Patna. Let the petitioner follow-up the action in relation to the above communication. The writ application is misplaced and is dismissed. Personal appearance of the Branch Manager is dispensed with. Pawan/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)