Gujarat High Court
Dhara Industries vs Dy. Director, M.S.M.E on 26 July, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/17704/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17704 of 2018
================================================================
DHARA INDUSTRIES
Versus
DY. DIRECTOR, M.S.M.E. & 4 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA PARIKH FOR MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 26/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. On 25.07.2022, this Court had passed an order, after hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The matter was kept today i.e. on 26.07.2022 since, when the order dated 25.07.2022 was passed, no one had appeared on behalf of the respondents.
3. Today, learned advocate Ms.Archana Amin and learned advocate Mr.Kshitij Amin for the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 and 3 are present.
4. RULE. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of rule.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to subsidy under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS), however, the same has already been denied on technical reason that the respondent no.2 i.e. the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) has processed his application seeking subsidy by a delay of one day and his offline application forwarded by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 is not accepted.
Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:59:08 IST 2022C/SCA/17704/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022
6. Learned advocate Mr.Aditya Parikh appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, in which it is accepted that initially the application seeking subsidy was processed in time by the respondent no.2, however, the same was returned by the respondent no.1. He has submitted that again, within the time limit prescribed by the respondent no.1, the respondent no.2 has made efforts to get it processed online, but due to technical reason of net connectivity, the claim could not be resubmitted online by 18.04.2016 and hence, it was not accepted by the online system on 19.04.2016 as the period for submission of claims got over on 18.04.2016. He has submitted that the respondent no.2 had sent a hard copy of the claim of the petitioner to the office of the respondent no.1 on 20.04.2016 with a request to allow re-submission, however, the same was also denied and not accepted as it was in offline mode. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot be faulted with the actions of the respondent nos.1 and 2 as he had in fact made his claim immediately, however, due to technical reason, the respondent no.2 though has tried subsequently to approve his subsidy claim from the respondent no.1, the same has been denied only for the reason that such claim cannot be accepted through offline. Thus, he has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed directing the respondent no.1 to release the subsidy of the petitioner.
7. The petitioner is a small scale industry and he is eligible for the benefit of subsidy under the CLCSS of Ministry of Micro Small Medium Enterprise, Government of India.
8. It is not disputed that the petitioner is entitled for 15% of subsidy, which amounts to Rs.9,43,114/- and accordingly, the petitioner had submitted his form on 03.06.2015. Since his subsidy was not cleared, he Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:59:08 IST 2022 C/SCA/17704/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022 inquired from his bank i.e. the Saurashtra Gramin Bank, SSI Branch and it was noticed by him that in the month of May, 2017, there was some lack on the part of the NABARD, which is a nodal agency appointed by the Government of India for execution of the scheme, his claim was not processed. The petitioner pursued his grievance before the respondent authorities and accordingly, he filed RTI application on 30.12.2017 inquiring about his claim. The petitioner has also approached MSME department at Ahmedabad in this regard and after making various efforts, by the impugned communication dated 11.07.2018 it was informed that the claim of the petitioner was returned by the respondent no.1. Initially it was returned on the ground that the machinery claim of the petitioner was not matching as per the approved risk and the nodal agency NABARD i.e. the respondent no.2 was asked to resubmit the claim once again after due verification after prescribed time frame. Due to technical reason of net connectivity, such claim was not processed and hence, it was informed by the respondent no.1 that the claim cannot be accepted on offline mode. Thus, the short issue involved in the writ petition is that whether the petitioner can be denied the claim of subsidy on the ground of technical breach i.e. non acceptance of his case, which has been forwarded by the respondent no.2 through offline mode.
9. Learned Advocate Ms.Archana min appearing for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the petitioner had filled in the form for claiming subsidy on 03.06.2015 before the Financing Bank, i.e. the respondent no.3, which was forwarded to the respondent no.2 on 06.06.2015 and on the initial scrutiny, the claim of the petitioner was recommended for subsidy of Rs.9,43,114/- and the same was forwarded by respondent no.2 to Development Commissioner, M.S.M.E. on 30.06.2015, but it was returned on 17.03.2016 on the ground that the machinery claimed is not Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:59:08 IST 2022 C/SCA/17704/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022 matching as per the approved list, and it was advised to resubmit the claim after verification. It is submitted that thereafter, the application of the petitioner for claiming subsidy was resubmitted online on 18.04.2016, but due to issue with regard to the net connectivity, it was not accepted by the online system on 19.04.2016 as the period for submission of claims got over on 18.04.2016. She has submitted that the respondent no.2 had sent a hard copy of the claim of the petitioner to the office of the respondent no.1 on 20.04.2016 with a request to allow re-submission, however, the same was also denied and not accepted as it was in offline mode.
10. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Kshitj Amin appearing for the respondent no.1 has submitted that since the application of the petitioner was filed offline, and the same was not accepted by the respondent no.1. It is submitted that accept online applications claiming subsidy, the same cannot be accepted offline, hence, the writ petition may not be entertained.
11. The facts which are established from the record of the writ petition are that the petitioner is though entitled to subsidy under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS), the same has been denied on technical reason that the respondent no.2 i.e. the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) has processed his application seeking subsidy by a delay of one day and subsequent application is made offline. The petitioner had submitted his form claiming subsidy on 03.06.2015 before the respondent no.3, which was forwarded to the respondent no.2 on 06.06.2015. On an initial scrutiny, the claim of the petitioner was recommended for subsidy of Rs.9,43,114/- and the same was forwarded by respondent no.2 to the Development Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:59:08 IST 2022 C/SCA/17704/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022 Commissioner, M.S.M.E on 30.06.2015, but it was returned to respondent no.2 on 17.03.2016 on the ground that the machinery claimed is not matching and respondent no.2 was advised to resubmit the same after verification. Again an online application was resubmitted by respondent no.2 on 18.04.2016, but it was not processed due to technical reasons of snag in the net connectivity, but it submitted on the next day on 19.04.2016. Since the time limit for submitting the online application had expired on 18.04.2016, it was not accepted. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 filed offline application on 20.04.2016, which is not accepted since it was made in offline mode. The aforesaid time line will reflect that the petitioner is made to suffer for no fault on his part, but due to procedural lapses on the part of the respondent nos.1 and 2. The respondent no.2 also requested the respondent no.1 to accept the offline application of the petitioner which was filed on 20.06.2016, however, the same has been denied only for the reason that the claim cannot be processed since through offline application. The petitioner had immediately filled his form claiming subsidy on 03.06.2015. It is not the case of the respondent no.1 that the delay was deliberately committed by the respondent no.2 in forwarding the application of the petitioner to the respondent no.1. Over and above the application, the offline application was also submitted and forwarded by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1, the same is also not considered favourable to the petitioner and the release of subsidy has been withheld. In wake of the aforesaid fact that since there was no mala fide intention or any extraneous consideration in filing and forwarding the claim of the petitioner by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 with regard to claim of subsidy by the petitioner, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to examine the offline application dated 20.04.2016 of the petitioner with regard to claim of Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:59:08 IST 2022 C/SCA/17704/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022 subsidy as per the CLCS Scheme and if he is satisfying all the requirements an appropriate orders releasing the subsidy within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order shall be passed .
8. The present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:59:08 IST 2022