Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant, in spite of Notices issued to him to appear on 17.9.2008, 5.11.2008 and 11.5.2009, has not put in appearance.  For today’s hearing, Notice was issued on 4.6.2009.  Respondent is not present.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

          Respondent applied for grant of loan of Rs.1 lakh under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojna (PMRY) meant for educated unemployed persons.  Respondent deposited all the relevant documents in this regard with the petitioner.  According to him, in spite of submitting all the documents and recommendation by the Commissioner of Industries, the loan was not sanctioned by the petitioner.  He issued legal notice and thereafter filed the complaint.

          Stand taken by the petitioner in its written version was that it did not sanction the loan to the respondent under the PMRY as the respondent had not mentioned the place where the work was to be started.  According to the complainant, the place of work was still to be arranged.  It was also stated that the respondent was not eligible to get the loan as he did not satisfy the income criteria.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/-, i.e., recommended amount of sanctioned loan, Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with Rs.2,000/- as costs.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed with the observation that the loan was not disbursed to the petitioner because of some ulterior motive. 

Counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

We agree with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of the ‘identified place’ at which the work was to be started by the respondent, the respondent could not be disbursed the loan.  It was within the discretion of the bank to sanction the loan keeping in view the commercial viability.  In the present case, the petitioner was justified in rejecting the application filed by the respondent for loan, as the respondent had failed to specify the place where the work was to be started, in the absence of which, the viability of the enterprise could not be determined.

For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is allowed.  Orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.