T. Marimuthu Vs The District Collector/The Chairman

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent nil dated, which was published in their Website only and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to process the petitioner's application

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P(MD)No.5110 of 2025

¶17

which was submitted for availing the benefits under the Prime Ministers Formulization of Micro Food Processing Enterprise Scheme (PMFME).

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gangai Amaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Spl. Govt. Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order of the second respondent published in their Website and to direct the respondents to process the petitioner's application which was submitted for availing the benefits under

¶21

the Prime Ministers Formulization of Micro Food Processing Enterprise Scheme (PMFME).

¶22

The petitioner claims that after completing his degree course, he has been trying to start a Micro Food Processing Business through selfemployment. He came to know that the Union of India has introduced a scheme under the name and style of “Prime Minister's Formulization of Micro Food Processing Enterprise Scheme (PMFME)”. As per the said scheme, the Union of India assured that it will provide 50 percent of a financial grant as branding and marketing support to any person involved in the said business.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/6

¶25

W.P(MD)No.5110 of 2025

¶26

The petitioner submitted an application on 22.10.2024. He sought a

¶27

loan of Rs.15,51,700/-. The said application was processed by the third respondent/Canara Bank. It was rejected by the bank for the following reasons:

¶28

(i) the project is economically not viable and

¶29

(ii) since the area where the micro food processing unit is sought to be

¶30

established is a hill area, it will not generate sufficient income.

¶31

Challenging the same, the present writ petition.

¶32

Heard Mr.C.Gangai Amaran, for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶33

The petitioner's application has been rejected since the bank, the disbursing agency, feels that the project is economically unviable and it would not generate sufficient income.

¶34

Mr.C.Gangai Amaran argues that such an order violates his right to practice profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. I disagree.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

3/6

¶37

W.P(MD)No.5110 of 2025

¶38

No one is preventing the petitioner from carrying any trade or business. By virtue of the rejection order, the petitioner has not been prevented from commencing the business. A decision has been taken by the bank that it is not willing to disburse the loan that has been sought by the petitioner. While there is a fundamental right to carry on trade or profession, one cannot claim that there is a fundamental right to carry on a trade with a bank loan. Banks are experts when it comes to analyzing loan applications. This court does not have the necessary expertise to sit on judgment over such decisions.

¶39