From the very beginning of his submissions, Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, restricted himself to the legal issues being raised by him in the case, and rightly so, because, had he entered into the thickets of the disputed facts, it might have been difficult for him to successfully ward off the charge of under utilization, non-utilization and diversion of fund, made available to the petitioner by the Bank in phases, as per its policy, more particularly in the light of the approved valuer‘s report dated 16.02.2012, annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure - K. But, before crystallizing his submissions into questions of law arising in the matter, the essential facts of the case, appearing from the pleadings of both the parties, which may require reference in this judgment, are only appropriate to be noticed first, in chronological order at one place. They are:-

25.04.2003 – Letter of National Horticultural Research & Development Foundation, informing the Sr. Manager, U.C.O. Bank, Fraser Road, Patna that proposal of petitioner holds promise and appears technically sound. (Annexure-1)

N.B.C. office of the respondent Bank at Calcutta sanctioned a t