ZIARUL HOQUE KHANDAKAR AND 18 ORS. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.
LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-201
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 31,2018

Ziarul Hoque Khandakar And 18 Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And 8 Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. - (1.) 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.