( 1 ) THE petitioner applied for loan to the tune of Rs. 94,000/- for starting a photo-studio under the Prime Minister s Rojgar Yojana (for short the Scheme ). He was interviewed by the Task Force Committee on 25-2-1997. His name was recommended by the said Committee for advancing loan. State Bank of hyderabad, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad (1st respondent) was indicated as the financing branch for the petitioner, but no action was taken by the 1st respondent for advancing loan to the petitioner. Further, according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent wrote a letter dated 23-4-1997 to the 1st respondent pointing out that necessary action was required to be taken within 60 days from the date of receipt of application from the District Industries centre, but the 1st respondent did not pay any heed to the same. Granting of loan only to four applicants and not extending the same to the petitioner, according to the petitioner, was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19 (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and was also violative of the norms of the Scheme under which the loan was sanctioned. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to a Member of Parliament who wrote a letter to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action in the matter, but, the same was also ignored by the respondents 1 and 3.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the 1st respondent-bank, the selection of the petitioner bythe Task Force Committee did not make it obligatory on the 1st respondent to release the amount. The letter dated 27-2-1997 itself contains a statement that the application was sent for taking further necessary action and that the respondent-bank had to scrutinise the same, check the genuineness of the same and viability of the business proposed. On receipt of the application form, the 1st respondent deputed a Field Officer to conduct a pre-sanction survey and on reaching the place, the address of which was given by the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner did not reside at that place, but he was the resident of Gokulnagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. When petitioner came to the bank on 12-3-1997 he replied in an offensive tone when the Field Officer enquired about his correct address and did not furnish the relevant details. The petitioner also did not furnish the details of his project and started threatening the Manager that he would report the matter to the Managing director, Ombudsman, etc. The respondent-bank was, therefore, not left with any choice, according to the 1st respondent, but to return the application to the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 21-3-1997. It is further contended by the 1st respondent that in all cases where the bank advanced loan the amount was released after verification and after conducting pre-sanction survey. There was no obligation, according to the 1st respondent, on the 1st respondent to advance loans to all applicants referred to by the 2nd respondent. The bank denies the receipt of any letter dated 23-4-1997 from the 2nd respondent asking the bank to release the loan amount within 60 days. Further, according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner s integrity was doubtful and, therefore, the question of reconsidering the matter did not arise after the receipt of the letter dated 24-3-1997 from the Member of Parliament. The bank reiterates that the petitioner did not clarify any points raised by the respondent-bank even till the date on which the deponent filed the counter-affidavit. The application of the petitioner was rejected not on flimsy grounds but by giving reasons and, therefore, according to the 1st respondent, the act of the 1st respondent could not be termed as illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory or violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. It is further contended by the bank that. the petitioner had no contractual or statutory right for sanction of loan. It was necessary for the bank to derive satisfaction whether the purpose for which t