Y. Krishan ( 1 ) THE complaint of the complaint petitioner is that Opposite Party No. 1 New Bank of India, has failed to provide to the complainant the working capital assured to be provided to the complainant for running his factory for manufacture of paper and paper products in the industrially backward hilly area of Himachal Pradesh. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the complainant, the Opposite Party No. 2, HPIDC (Himachal Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.) approved the project report for setting up of the project for the manufacture of paper and paper products for Rs. 86. 82 lacs in 1980. The project estimates were revised to Rs. l55 lacs in October, 1985 and increased working capital was assured. In January, 1988 a proposal for the rehabilitation of the Unit was considered and additional term loan was sanctioned. ( 3 ) THE unit was to be financed by term loan by Opposite Party No. 2, HPIDC and Opposite Party No. 3 , H. P. Financial Corporation and by working capital facilities in the form of cash credit (hypothecation), bills discounting, bills purchase (cheque discounting ). Inland and Foreign Letters of Credit by the. opposite party No. 1, New Bank of India (for short the Bank ). The complaint is that even though the Bank had committed to provide need based credit facilities to the complainant, these were not provided adequately. In fact, the complainant has claimed that though the additional working capital credit facilities were sanctioned by the Bank, yet these were not released to the complainant as those were subjected to impractical conditions. The Opposite Party No. l released the amounts against these facilities meagrely; agfinst the agreed working capital facilities of Rs. 29 lacs only Rs. 9. 5 lacs were released in June, 1986. Further a sum of Rs. 10 lacs by way of interest due to Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 was recovered by the Parties concerned out of the term loan sanctioned. In April, 1987, the Bank allegedly froze the working capital limits verbally without giving an opportunity to the complainant to be heard. 5 lacs were released in June, 1986. Further a sum of Rs. 10 lacs by way of interest due to Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 was recovered by the Parties concerned out of the term loan sanctioned. In April, 1987, the Bank allegedly froze the working capital limits verbally without giving an opportunity to the complainant to be heard. ( 4 ) FROM the complaint petition it is, however, not clear as to whether any forking capital loan facilities were actually sanctioned or only the working capital loan facilities assured for being sanctioned : what were the working capital facilities sanctioned in 1980, when the project was first cleared and later revised/sanctioned in 1986, when the revised project report was sanctioned. Though in the complaint petition the complainant claims that the working capital facilities, as mentioned in the claim petition, amounting to Rs. 29 lacs were assured/sanctioned, a copy of the sanction of the Bank is not attached to the complaint petition. On the other band, it is noted from Annexure c to the complaint petition, the complainant M/s. kraft Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. s letter of 30th April, 1987 to the Deputy General Manager of the bank, that the facilities sanctioned totalled to an amount of Rs. 20 lacs arid not Rs. 30 lacs as claimed by the complainant. ( 5 ) THE complaint petition also does not explain as to when and how the unit required rehabilitation financial assistance. In Other words, when did it became sick and why? ( 6 ) THE Bank has contested the complaint. It has maintained that there has been no deficiency in the rendering of service or negligence on its part in relation to the complainant as alleged. Besides it has claimed that in loan transactions the bank has an absolute option to give a loan or refuse the same and there is no commitment. by the Bank to the borrower necessarily to give a loan to him. In fact, according to the respondent Bank, in the cash credit agreement made by the Bank, there is a provision that the Bank may, at any time, refuse the advances to the borrower without any notice, without assigning any reason, even though the contemplated limit has not been availed of by the borrower. In fact, according to the respondent Bank, in the cash credit agreement made by the Bank, there is a provision that the Bank may, at any time, refuse the advances to the borrower without any notice, without assigning any reason, even though the contemplated limit has not been availed of by the borrower. It is further submitted that refusal to render service is not a deficiency in the services rendered ( 7 ) ON merits it is maintained by the Bank that it allowed the complainant petitioner to avail all the working capital facilities to. the full extent, but the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions laid down by the Bank in that behalf. It was further pointed out that the complainant petitioner company has removed various machinery and other items of plant and machinery which form the security for the loans advanced by the Bank and other financial institutions in violation of the terms and conditions of the term and working capital loans. Further that the loan account of the complainant petitioner show debit balances rendering him ineligible for further advances. ( 8 ) THIS Commission in a number of cases has already decided that the Banks have the discretion to decide whether to sanction any working capital facilities to a party, and having sanctioned them whether it is justified to continue to provide those facilities and that the Banks are within their rights to withhold the provision of such facilities if the performance of the loanee is-not satisfactory. Again it is for the Banks to decide whether rehabilitation financial assistance for the purpose of. rehabilitation and nursing sick industries ought to be provided or not. In this particular case, the Bank has further pointed out that the complainant company did not fulfill the credit conditions. It further alleges that the complainant failed to comply with the conditions attached to the working capital facilities and including those to be provided under the rehabilitation programme. On the other hand, its credit accounts were irregular being overdrawn. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING all these facts, the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in the rendering of service on the part of the Bank. Our finding, however, will not preclude the complainant from peeking redress in a Civil Court if it so chooses and is so advised. ( 10 ) THE complainant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000. Our finding, however, will not preclude the complainant from peeking redress in a Civil Court if it so chooses and is so advised. ( 10 ) THE complainant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000. 00 as costs to the Opposite Party.