Karnataka High Court
The General Manager vs Rajeev & Company on 20 July, 2016
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
-1-
WA No.100197 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
WA No.100197 OF 2016
BETWEEN
THE GENERAL MANAGER
SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
BANK OF INDIA
"SIDBI TOWER",
15, ASHOK MARG,
LUCKNOW-226001,
UTTAR PRADESH
... APPELLANT
(By Sri R.M. PHIRANGI, ADV.)
AND
1. RAJEEV & COMPANY
THROUGH ITS PARTNER
N.B.RAJEEV RAO
S/O N.K.BHEEMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT:45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT 423, III CROSS,
NAZAR CAMP VADAGAO,
BELAGAVI-590005.
TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
WA No.100197 OF 2016
KARNATAKA STATE
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF MICRO,
SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES,
GOVT. OF INDIA,
UDYOG BHAVAN,
REFI MARG,
NEW DELHI-110011
3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY &
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (SSI)
NIRMAN BHAVAN, 7TH FLOOR,
MAULANA AZAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110011
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.K.MARUTI RAO FOR R1, ADV.
SRI S.P.KANDAGAL, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3, ADV.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORD
IN WP NO.63704/2010 AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WP NO.63704/2010
DATED 02.12.2015 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, H.G. RAMESH J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
WA No.100197 OF 2016
JUDGMENT
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated December 2, 2015 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.63704 of 2010.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned order and the additional documents produced along with I.A. No.3/2016.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge is not justified in directing the appellant(respondent No.3 in the writ petition) to release a sum of Rs.2.90 lakhs towards subsidy to respondent No.1(writ petitioner) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application seeking grant of subsidy till the date of actual payment.
4. The dispute is as to whether respondent No.1 is entitled for the maximum subsidy of Rs.4.8 lakhs under the subsidy scheme. The scheme, which is extracted in -4- WA No.100197 OF 2016 the impugned order, to the extent it is relevant, is extracted below:
S. Maximum ceiling Maximum subsidy No. Existing Investment Limit of loan eligible for available under support * the scheme 1 Tiny units with investment in plant & machinery less than Rs.8 lakh Rs.0.96 lakh Rs.10 lakh 2 Tiny units with investment in plant and machinery between Rs.20 lakh Rs.2.40 lakh Rs.10 lakh to Rs.25 lakh 3 Small units with investment in plant & machinery above Rs.40 lakh Rs.4.80 lakh Rs.25 lakh [* The eligible subsidy would be calculated on the actual loan amount or maximum ceiling on loan eligible for subsidy, whichever is lower.]
5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1(writ petitioner) is a small scale industry with investment of above Rs.25 lakhs in plant and machinery, and under the scheme, it is entitled to avail the maximum subsidy of Rs.4.80 lakhs on its loan up to Rs.40 lakhs. There is no dispute that respondent No.1 had availed of loan exceeding Rs.40 lakhs. Hence, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge in holding that respondent No.1 is entitled for the maximum subsidy of Rs.4.8 lakhs.-5-
WA No.100197 OF 2016
6. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein had filed the following objections to the writ petition:
"1. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
2. Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme, under which the petitioner herein claims additional subsidy, was issued under The Micro Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006. The object of the scheme being technology up-gradation for small-scale industries, the subsidy is sanctioned only after other conditions prescribed under the scheme are fulfilled, and therefore, the beneficiary cannot claim the subsidy as of right. The authority sanctioning the subsidy has substantial element of discretion.
3. The subsidy to a unit was to be considered as per the then prevailing guidelines issued under the CLCSS. In terms of then..... the second and subsequent loan is not eligible for subsidy under the scheme. The petitioner is eligible for the subsidy only once, and according to the scheme, the second and subsequent loan is not eligible for the subsidy. Therefore, the petitioner's application for subsidy for the second time was rejected.
4. There is no provision under the scheme for availing the subsidy on subsequent loan raised by any small-scale industries, and therefore, the respondents state that petitioner is not eligible for subsidy for the second time.
For the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order dismissing the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not able to point out any condition in the scheme, circular or in any document relating to the scheme to deny the maximum -6- WA No.100197 OF 2016 subsidy available under the scheme to respondent No.1, notwithstanding its availing of loan of Rs.40 lakhs.
8. As we find no error in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. I.A. No.3 of 2016 filed for production of additional documents is disposed of. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No.2/2016 filed for interim stay stands dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE kmv