Abdul Quddhose, J.:— This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2012 and pass orders.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she applied for a loan under the Unemployed Youth Employment Generation Programme (UYEGP) scheme with the second respondent. According to her, she has satisfied all the eligibility requirements for availing the loan under the said scheme. It is also her case that the first respondent has also selected the applicant and forwarded the same to the second respondent bank along with their recommendation dated 05.03.2012 requesting the second respondent to sanction a loan of Rs. 4,92,000/- to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after receiving the recommendation of the first respondent, she completed all the preliminary work for commencing the manufacturing process of detergents. It is also her case that she met the Manager of the second respondent bank and explained to him about the business of manufacture of detergents and necessity for a loan. According to her, despite the recommendations made by the first respondent, the second respondent bank has not sanctioned loan in favour of the petitioner. Hence, she gave a representation on 28.04.2012 to the third respondent requesting them to sanction loan to the petitioner under the UYEGP scheme, as requested by her under the said loan application. It is her case that till date, the said representation has not been duly considered by the third respondent. In such circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.
3. Ms. S. Rajeni Ramadoss, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. Despite service of notice on the first respondent and their name having been printed in the cause list today, there is no representation on their side.
4. Admittedly, the scheme was introduced by the first respondent viz., UYEGP scheme which enables unemployed youth to avail loan to start up a new business. In the case on hand, the petitioner has applied for loan under the aforesaid scheme. The first respondent has also recommended the case of the petitioner to the second respondent by their letter dated 05.03.2012 for sanction of the loan in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, a representation has also been given by the petitioner on 28.04.2012 to the third respondent requesting for sanction of loan under the UYEGP scheme as recommended by the first respondent. It is also not in dispute that the said representation has not been considered by the third respondent.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to direct the third respondent to consider the representation dated 28.04.2012 submitted by the petitioner for sanction of the loan for a sum of Rs. 4,92,000/- under the UYEGP scheme introduced by the first respondent for starting up the business of manufacturing the detergents. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the directions sought for by the writ petitioner is issued in her favour by this Court.
6. Accordingly, this Court directs the third respondent to consider representation dated 28.04.2012 of the petitioner requesting for sanction of the loan of Rs. 4,92,000/- under the UYEGP scheme for starting and running her detergent manufacturing business, subject to the current existence of the said scheme as well as fulfilment of all the terms and conditions required to be satisfied by the petitioner for grant of the said loan.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Comments