JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2. 2. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 at the outset, has submitted that there is no entity like Task Force, it is a committee comprised of representatives of the different stake-holders, for implementation of the programme. As such, no reply is required to be filed by them. The respondent No.1 is the competent authority to select the beneficiary and make the recommendation to bank for financing such projects, on due advice from the Task Force. 3. It appears from the order dated 22.07.2016, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, had made a categorical statement, that the United Bank of India had made an incorrect statement before this court and based on which, this court had passed an order dated 29.09.2015 in W.P.(C) No.133/2015. It is really surprising to note, despite notice from this court, the respondent No.3, the United Bank of India, did not appear to file the reply against the allegations made against them in the writ petition. The petitioner was selected by the Task Force of Unakoti District for her project under the PPMEGP scheme and the Bank which was supposed to finance such project, was found to be the United Bank of India, Kailashahar Branch. 4. From the letter dated 09.07.2013 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition), it is apparent that the Dy. Director for the Task Force, Unakoti, had recommended the proposal of the petitioner to the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Kailashahar Branch for financing the petitioner by granting financial assistance to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/- as Term Loan and an additional sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as the Cash Credit for the mechanized biscuit factory unit. However, it has been provided that, the financial assistance would be for the technically feasible and economically viable project. When the Bank turned down such proposal on the ground that the United Bank of India, Kailashahar Branch is not the appropriate bank and on that basis only they did not finance the project of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this court by filing the writ petition earlier, being W.P.(C) No.133/2015. When the Bank turned down such proposal on the ground that the United Bank of India, Kailashahar Branch is not the appropriate bank and on that basis only they did not finance the project of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this court by filing the writ petition earlier, being W.P.(C) No.133/2015. At the para 8 of the judgment and order dated 29.09.2015 passed by this court in the said writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.133/2015, the reply of the United Bank of India, Kailashahar Branch, has been reproduced as under: “We are sending herewith the proposals of 06 persons sponsored for the year 2014-15 as these are not in our service area. The list and proposals are enclosed here with.” Having regard to that, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: “Having regard to this aspect of the matter, the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to make necessary inquiry to find out which is the competent bank to finance and guide the persons who have been recommended by the Task Force Committee within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today and to responsor the proposals to the appropriate branch to deal with such proposals. Not only this, the respondents No.1 and 2 shall monitor 6 W. P.(C) No.133 of 2015 Page 6 of 6 and take a pro-active role so that these proposals are acted up by the concerned branch. If necessary, they shall form a committee to monitor realisation of the proposal within a reasonable time.” When the said scheme was re-sponsored again to the same Branch of the United Bank of India, by the communication dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition), there has been no reply. 5. Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Khadi and Village Industries Commission, has submitted that the State Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission made communication to the Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, by their letter dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure- A to their counter-affidavit) for expedition. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, has further referred to the communication made by the Chief Manager, United Bank of India on 07.01.2016 (Annexure-D to their counter-affidavit), whereby the United Bank of India has completely resiled from their stand taken in the previous writ petition, on observing that : “The proposal of Dipti Roy, w/o Gopal Saha, Vill. Kalipur, PO. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, has further referred to the communication made by the Chief Manager, United Bank of India on 07.01.2016 (Annexure-D to their counter-affidavit), whereby the United Bank of India has completely resiled from their stand taken in the previous writ petition, on observing that : “The proposal of Dipti Roy, w/o Gopal Saha, Vill. Kalipur, PO. Paiturbazar, Kailashahar (Mechanised Biscuit Bakery) for a project cost of Rs.15000000.00/- (fifteen lacs) is returned for the reason that it is not an economically viable proposal for the branch.” 6. Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the United Bank of India, represented through their authorised officer, took part in all the proceedings of the Task Force Committee of the District and as such when the recommendation is made on the basis of the proposal of the Task Force Committee, it has to be assumed that all aspects of the matter were properly appreciated and only thereafter the recommendation was made. Even though, in the recommendation it has been indicated that the financial assistance would be subject to technical feasibility and economical viability but in the circumstances, the bank cannot refuse the nominated beneficiary. If the bank is allowed to sit over the decision of the Task Force Committee and such projects are viewed from a commercial viability then, there shall be no sponsor for these projects because the banks which are supposed to support these kinds of projects shall always be in a mood to avoid financing the micro projects under the said Central Scheme. 7. In view of what has been observed, the respondent No.1 is directed to make the proposal to any other bank and impress them to finance the petitioner’s project. If it appears, the same is difficult to realise within the framework of the project, then the Task Force shall take up the matter as a special case, so that the petitioner can have the necessary financial assistance within a period of 6(six) months from today. It will be the duty of the respondent No.1 in particular to see the petitioner is provided with finance for implementation of the small project, called “Mechanized Biscuit Bakery” and, she is not required to knock the door of the court again. 8. With this observation and direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. It will be the duty of the respondent No.1 in particular to see the petitioner is provided with finance for implementation of the small project, called “Mechanized Biscuit Bakery” and, she is not required to knock the door of the court again. 8. With this observation and direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 for doing the needful.