AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners, 19 in number. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned standing counsel, Industries and
Commerce Department appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7, Mr. P. Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 9, Mr. A.
Chakravorty, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 8
and Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 10. None appears for respondent No. 3, namely, Director of Khadi and Village
Industries Commission.
The case of the petitioners, as projected in the writ petition, is that they responded toan advertisement issued by the District Industries and
Commerce Centre (DIC), Dhubri, Khadi and Village Industries Board (KVIB), Dhubri and Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC),
Guwahati for the purpose of selection of candidates to provide loan under Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP)
Scheme, 2016-2017. They appeared before the District Level Task Force Committee (DLTFC) and after interview DLTFC prepared a selection list
where names of petitioner Nos. 1 to 10, 11 to 13 and 14 to 19 appeared in the list of KVIC, KVIB and DIC, respectively. On the basis of selection
list, copy of which was not provided to the petitioners, respondent Nos. 3, 7 and 8 sent proposals during the period 9.12.2016 to 6.1.2017 to the
respondent No. 9 for grant of loan. Thereafter, the respondent No. 9 required the enlisted candidates to submit documents for sanctioning the loan
amount.
The petitioners had submitted documents as required by the respondent No. 9.Coming to know that there was a move to sponsor only 20 candidates
they represented before the respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 10 stating that selection of beneficiaries is made without following the guidelines of
PMEGP Scheme on pick and choose basis. However, no action was taken on the said representation and first installment of loan amount was
released to 20 candidates. It is in the above background that this writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No. 9 to
release the loan amount under PMEGP Scheme to the petitioners.
In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, while briefly stating the salient featuresof PMEGP Scheme, it is stated that on receipt of the project
proposals recommended by the DLTFC, bank will apprise the same at its level and take credit decision on the basis of viability of the project. It is
admitted that DLTFC had forwarded the projects of the petitioners.
Two affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos. 5, one on 11.12.2017 and anadditional affidavit on 15.5.2018.
In the affidavit filed on 11.12.2017, it is stated that a provisional list was prepared by DLTFC and was forwarded to respondent No. 9 to take final
credit decision on the proposals on the touch-stone of technical feasibility, commercial viability and bankability for finance. It is stated that targets are
fixed nation-wise, state-wise and district-wise under the PMEGP Scheme and funds are released accordingly by the Government of India. The
financial target remains the same for one financial year though physical target is variable. So far as respondent No. 9 is concerned, for the financial
year 2016-2017, the target of 9 was fixed for advancing loan. Subsequently, target was revised to 18 and accordingly, 18 numbers of proposals were
sanctioned and loan was disbursed to beneficiaries and the rest were returned. However, in certain paragraphs, such as paragraphs 10 and 12, it is
stated that sanction was accorded for granting loan to 20 beneficiaries out of 45.Â
In the additional affidavit filed on 15.5.2018, it is stated that 45 numbers of proposalwere uploaded in PMEGP portal of KVIC/KVIB/DIC against
target of 9 as per District Credit Plan and as such, the respondent No. 9 returned all the proposals and the Regional Manager of respondent No. 5
wrote a letter dated 23.4.2017 to the General Manager, District Industries Centre requesting to re-submit proposal as per target of District Credit
Plan.
After the said letter was issued on 30.3.2017, 20 numbers of proposals were uploadedin the PMEGP portal of KVIC/KVIB/DIC against
respondent No. 9, keeping the financial target intact. Two of the selected applicants did not turn up and therefore, respondent No. 9 sanctioned and
disbursed 18 proposals under PMEGP Scheme for the financial year 20162017.
In the affidavit-in-reply filed to the affidavit of respondent No. 5 dated 11.12.2017, it isreiterated that loan amount was disbursed to 20 candidates
on pick and choose basis.
Mr. Islam has submitted that the DLTFC having recommended the names of thepetitioners along with others it was incumbent upon the bank to
sanction and disburse loan to the petitioners. He has submitted that there is lack of transparency in preparation of selection list. The petitioners were
initially selected and the bank had also sought for various documents from the petitioners which they had supplied and therefore, they have legitimate
expectation for grant of loan.
Mr. Das, abiding by the stand taken in the affidavits filed by respondent No. 5, hassubmitted that originally the target for grant of financial benefit
under PMEGP Scheme for the financial year 2016-2017 was fixed at 9 in respect of respondent No. 9. He submits that earlier also select list was
forwarded containing more names than the target fixed which resulted in lots of pressure being exerted by such selected candidates for disbursement
of loan and therefore, in view of the past experience, the select list containing 45 numbers of candidates was returned back and thereafter, 20 names
were forwarded to the bank by DIC, KVIB and KVIC. Two of the candidates did not turn up, and loan was disbursed to 18 numbers of selected
candidates. He has submitted that for the financial year, a sum of Rs. 40,48,000.00 was earmarked for disbursement. He has further submitted that
there is no stipulation in the PMEGP Scheme that all the proposals uploaded in the portal have to be accorded sanction for the purpose of
disbursement of loan. Placing reliance on Clauses 11.18 and 11.19 of the PMEGP Scheme he contends that bank is obliged to apprise the projects and
take their own credit decision on the basis of, amongst others, viability of the project and thus it is within the prerogative of the bank to either accept or
reject the proposal depending on its merit.Â
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and haveperused the materials on record.
The PMEGP Scheme is a Credit Linked Subsidy Programme. This Scheme wasintroduced by merging two schemes, namely, Prime
Minister’s Rojgar Yojana (PMRY) and Rural Employment Generation Programme (REGP), which were in operation till 31.3.2008, with the
avowed object of generating employment opportunities through establishment of micro enterprises in rural as well as urban areas. The Scheme is a
central sector scheme to be administered by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MoMSME). The Scheme is implemented by
KVIC under the administrative control of the Ministry of MSME as the single Nodal agency at the national level. At the State level, it is implemented
through State KVIC Directorates, State KVIBs, DICs and banks.
The Scheme lays down its objectives, quantum and nature of financial assistance,eligibility conditions of beneficiaries, modalities to be adopted by
the implementing agencies and other agencies, financial institutions, identification of beneficiaries and modalities of online process flow of application
and fund flow under the Scheme, etc.
Clause 11.1 of the Scheme envisages inviting of project proposals from potentialbeneficiaries by KVIC, KVIB and DIC on periodical intervals
depending on the targets allotted to that particular district. No manual applications are allowed and online applications are mandatory with effect
1.5.2016.Â
Clause 11.14, amongst others, provides for appraisal of the applications received onthe same methodology as followed by banks for approval of
loans. Applications which do not conform to the guidelines under the Scheme or which remain incomplete or irrelevant even after consultation with the
applicants are to be rejected by the concerned Nodal Officer recording reasons for rejection. The Clause also provides for raising of grievance before
the State Director, KVIC.
Clause 11.15 provides for constitution of a Task Force with some members asindicated therein with the District Magistrate/Deputy
Commissioner/Collector as Chairman and General Manager, DIC of the district as Member Convener to scrutinize the applications. This task force is
called the District Level Task Force Committee (DLTFC). The decision of DLTFC is to be conveyed online to KVIC/KVIB/DIC within three
working days.
Clause 11.18 provides that the bank will apprise the projects and take their own creditdecision on the basis of viability of each project and Clause
11.19 provides that the bank will either sanction or reject the loan application within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
DLTFC recommended applications.
The averments made by respondent No. 5 in the affidavit filed on 11.12.2017 that asagainst the target of 9 fixed for respondent No. 9 Branch for
the financial year 2016-2017, 45 proposals were uploaded, are not denied in the reply affidavit.
It appears from the combined reading of both the affidavits filed by the bank that oncethe bank returned the 45 applications as the same were in
excess of the target of 9 fixed, the select list was pruned to 20 and accordingly, the select list was again uploaded in the portal of PMEGP. Two of the
beneficiaries listed therein did not approach and subsequently, disbursement was made to rest of the 18 selected candidates. It is also stated in the first
affidavit that the competent authority had increased the target from 9 to 20 but within the financial target fixed. Though the amount of such financial
target was not mentioned in the affidavit, which Mr. Das informs the Court as 40,48,000.00, that there was some financial target fixed is not disputed
by the petitioners in the reply affidavit filed.
Materials on record are not sufficient for the Court to record a finding as to whetherdespite being aware of the target, the DLTFC had
recommended list of beneficiaries five times more than the target fixed. However, it needs to be emphasized that for smooth and meaningful
implementation of the Scheme, all the stake-holders will have to work in tandem and with cohesion.
The petitioners have not assailed the selection of the selected candidates by makingthem party respondents in this proceeding. In their absence, it
will not be in the interest of justice to embark upon an exercise to find out whether the selectees had been arbitrarily selected. As the stand of the
bank is that the target had been fulfilled and no excess fund is available for the financial year 2016-2017, no mandamus can be issued to grant benefits
to the petitioners in terms of PMEGP Scheme for the financial year 2016-2017.
In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is dismissed.
No cost.
Â