IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.28390 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010665522026 Abhisek Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Salyadu Anil Kumar Dora -versus- 1) UNION OF INDIA ..... Opposite Parties 2) THE STATE OF ODISHA Represented by Adv. – 3) THE GENERAL MANAGERS Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI AND DISTRICT RESOURCE PERSONS(DRPS) , CUTTACK Mr. K.K. Jena 4) THE COLLECTOR AND Mr. J.K.K. Ray, ASC DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUTTACK 5) THE ZONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BHUBANESWAR 6) THE B.M., STATE BANK OF INDIA, CUTTACK CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.09.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsels for the Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: Page 1 of 4. “The petitioner therefore most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the competent Opposite Parties to complete the processing and take a final decision on the petitioner's PMFME application bearing Application ID 121350261656575 within a stipulated period, preferably within four weeks from the date of communication/production of the order of this Hon'ble Court;

b. Direct the concerned lending Bank i;e 0pp. Party No-6, Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack Branch, upon sanction of the eligible loan and completion of applicable banking formalities, to disburse the sanctioned term-loan amount, of Rs.9,95,000/-, within a further stipulated period in accordance with the PMFME Guidelines and normal banking practice; c. Direct the concerned authorities i;e 0pp. Party No-3 to adhere to Para 13.6 and Para 13.7 of the PMFME Guidelines, particularly the requirements of regular forwarding of applications and minimisation of processing time; d. Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Party No.6 in not extending the benefit under the PMFME Scheme ported by the Government of India, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that under the aforesaid scheme/guideline at Annexure-5 the Petitioner is entitled to get loan benefits from Bank subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned under such Page 2 of 4.

scheme. He further submitted that although the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.6-Bank, however, no decision has been taken with regard to the claim of benefits by the Petitioner under the aforesaid scheme. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.6, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsels appearing for the Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that there is nothing on record to establish the fact that the Petitioner has approached the Bank under the scheme. It was also contended that there is nothing on record to indicate that such prayer has been rejected. On such ground, learned counsels appearing for the Opposite Parties submitted before this Court that the writ petition being premature is liable to be dismissed both on the ground that the same is premature as well as on the ground of maintainability.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.6-Bank by filing a detailed representation under the guidelines at Annexure-5 within ten days from today. In the event any such application is filed, the same shall be considered strictly in terms of the guidelines at Annexure-5 and a final decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.6 along with a copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. Page 3 of 4. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Sep-2026 13:57:08 Page 4 of 4.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.28390 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010665522026 Abhisek Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Salyadu Anil Kumar Dora -versus- 1) UNION OF INDIA ..... Opposite Parties 2) THE STATE OF ODISHA Represented by Adv. – 3) THE GENERAL MANAGERS Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI AND DISTRICT RESOURCE PERSONS(DRPS) , CUTTACK Mr. K.K. Jena 4) THE COLLECTOR AND Mr. J.K.K. Ray, ASC DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUTTACK 5) THE ZONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BHUBANESWAR 6) THE B.M., STATE BANK OF INDIA, CUTTACK CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.09.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsels for the Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: Page 1 of 4. “The petitioner therefore most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the competent Opposite Parties to complete the processing and take a final decision on the petitioner's PMFME application bearing Application ID 121350261656575 within a stipulated period, preferably within four weeks from the date of communication/production of the order of this Hon'ble Court;

b. Direct the concerned lending Bank i;e 0pp. Party No-6, Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack Branch, upon sanction of the eligible loan and completion of applicable banking formalities, to disburse the sanctioned term-loan amount, of Rs.9,95,000/-, within a further stipulated period in accordance with the PMFME Guidelines and normal banking practice; c. Direct the concerned authorities i;e 0pp. Party No-3 to adhere to Para 13.6 and Para 13.7 of the PMFME Guidelines, particularly the requirements of regular forwarding of applications and minimisation of processing time; d. Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Party No.6 in not extending the benefit under the PMFME Scheme ported by the Government of India, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that under the aforesaid scheme/guideline at Annexure-5 the Petitioner is entitled to get loan benefits from Bank subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned under such Page 2 of 4.

scheme. He further submitted that although the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.6-Bank, however, no decision has been taken with regard to the claim of benefits by the Petitioner under the aforesaid scheme. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.6, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsels appearing for the Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that there is nothing on record to establish the fact that the Petitioner has approached the Bank under the scheme. It was also contended that there is nothing on record to indicate that such prayer has been rejected. On such ground, learned counsels appearing for the Opposite Parties submitted before this Court that the writ petition being premature is liable to be dismissed both on the ground that the same is premature as well as on the ground of maintainability.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.6-Bank by filing a detailed representation under the guidelines at Annexure-5 within ten days from today. In the event any such application is filed, the same shall be considered strictly in terms of the guidelines at Annexure-5 and a final decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.6 along with a copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. Page 3 of 4. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 11-Sep-2026 13:57:08 Page 4 of 4.