JUDGMENT

Date : 31-05-2018 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.

2. The case of the petitioners, as projected in the writ petition, is that they responded to an 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.

3. 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.

4. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, while briefly stating the salient features of 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.

5. Two affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos. 5, one on 11.12.2017 and an additional affidavit on 15.5.2018.

6. 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.

7. In the additional affidavit filed on 15.5.2018, it is stated that 45 numbers of proposal were 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.