1.      Mrs. Chandrika, the petitioner had applied for a loan with the Syndicate Bank Ltd., the Opposite Party in order to start a coconut shell Charcol production unit under the Prime Minister Employment General

-2-

Program (PMEGP).  The Opposite party had agreed to sanction a loan to the tune of Rs. 8 lakhs.  The contention raised by the complainant is that on the basis of loan promise made by the opposite party, the complainant procured all documents necessary for sanctioning of the loan and produced the same before the opposite party.  The complainant also took training for running such a unit and spent about Rs. 50,000/-.  However, at the eleventh hour, the opposite party refused to sanction the loan.  The complainant alleges that this amounted to deficiency in service and filed the complaint before the District Forum.

2.      The District Forum allowed the complaint but when the appeal was filed by the opposite party the same was accepted.  We have heard the counsel for the complainant.  He submits that certain documents were not considered.  He submits that they have also filed green channel certificate issued by the Manager. As a matter of fact this certificate is not a pollution control certificate. He further submitted that the pollution control certificate was also filed and a copy of the certificate is filed as ‘Exhibit A3’.  Counsel for the complainant has also filed the consent given by the neighbour.

3.      We see no merits in these arguments for the following reason.  This is an admitted fact that the  husband of the  complainant,  Mr.

-3-

Achutha Bhatt was earlier running Coconut Shell Charcol production units at the place and there was widespread opposition from the people of the locality against running such a unit.  Counsel for the complainant submits that the police told her husband to close the coconut shell unit because he was not having the pollution control certificate.  Panchayat also interfered and decided that the said factory could not run.  Above all, there is no evidence at all, to indicate that the OP had in fact agreed to sanction the loan.  The loan was never sanctioned.  The complainant could produce only letter seeking production of certain documents and the complainant has failed to produce the proof of any promise made by the opposite party that the loan would be sanctioned in her favour under all the probabilities.  The matter was still under consideration.  It was the discretion of the bank to sanction the loan or not to sanction it.  It is made clear that all the representations made by the public are not to be accepted.

5.      The stand taken by the opposite party is that the Coconut Shell unit previously run by her husband gave rise to so many problems.  The grievance of the neighours was that they are facing serious health problems arising from the smoke and pollution emanating from the factory.  The Panchayat authorities interfered and stopped the husband of the complainant from running the factory.  During inspection made by

-4-

the bank authorities the inhabitants of the locality complained about the serious health problems they suffer from the pollution caused by the factory run by Mr. Achutha Bhatt.

6.      We are unable to find any flaw in the order rendered by the State Commission and dismiss the revision petition.  Since the complaint is filed by a lady therefore we refrain from imposing any cost.