STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs Braham Parkash

STATE Bank of Patiala, Gurgaon, has come up in appeal against the order dated 30.9.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, whereby the complaint of respondent No. 1 Braham Parkash, for the release of loan under the Prime Minister''s Rozgar Yojna, has been allowed by issuing the following direction: "The complainant has obtained in writing from Manphool Singh of Om Nagar, Gurgaon, who is ready to lease out his shop for installation of printing press. Shri R.K. Sharma has also given a similar writing. There is another shop No. 27, Khandsa Road, near Raghu Gas Agency, Gurgaon. All the three places are quite suitable for establishment of printing press and so there cannot be any objection for the Bank for granting the loan. Thus, it is ordered that the complainant be granted the loan at the earliest, i.e. within a period of one month".

THE complainant had approached the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon. with the grievance that even though he had applied for the grant of loan for installing the printing press under the self-employment scheme and the District Industries Officer, Gurgaon, had recommended the loan to the Bank, yet the same had not been released. In reply, the State Bank of Patiala pleaded that the loan was not released as the installation of the Printing Press was going to be made in a residential area which would not have attracted the customers. THE learned District Consumer Forum, however, did not accept the plea and found that as the complainant had completed all the formalities, the Bank should have granted the loan. In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that as the complainant''s proposal lacked potential for attracting the customers, it was the duty of the Bank to consider the viability of the proposal also for the grant of loan.

After hearing the learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that no doubt by granting loan to the complainant the Bank was incurring a financial liability, but the considerations for the grant of loan had to be scrutinised and fully examined by the loan Sanctioning Authority and not by the Bank at the time of releasing the loan. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same by upholding the detailed and well reasoned order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. ____________