Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India Thr vs M/S Gdp Agro And Food Products Pvt. Ltd ... on 2 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 227
(1)
R.P. No. 551/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
R.P. No.551/2016
Union of India
Vs.
M/s GDP Agro and Others
DB: Sheel Nagu & S.A.Dharmadhikari,JJ
------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vivek Khedkar, Assistant Solicitor
General for the petitioner/Union of India.
Shri V.K.Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Shri
Gajendra Sahu, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri M.P.Agarwal, Advocate for respondent
nos.2 to 4.
------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
02/4/2019 Per Dharmadhikari, J This petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 12/9/2016 passed in W.P. No. 4932/2013.
2. The said writ petition was filed by respondent no.1 inter alia seeking direction against the respondents therein to release the amount of Rs.50 lacs sanctioned to it, as subsidy under the Scheme framed by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India. The respondent no.1/Writ Petitioner also sought direction to pay interest on the aforesaid amount, as (2) R.P. No. 551/2016 well as, direction to respondent no.5 to restore the data deleted in respect of the petitioner in E-portal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order was passed, operative part whereof reads thus:-
"13. Admittedly, the Bank has received the application of the petitioner under the Scheme and has duly scrutinized the same and recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of subsidy under the Scheme. The Bank branches are responsible for processing of the application. The petitioner has complied with all the formalities prescribed under the Scheme. The Scheme does not provide that if the application is not uploaded on the "e" portal, the applicant would not be entitled to grant of subsidy under the Scheme. Taking into account the recommendation made by the Bank itself that the case of the petitioner can be processed manually or some changes in "e" portal can be made to upload the same in the system again, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to process the claim of the petitioner under the Scheme specially in the light of recommendations made by the respondents No. 2 to 4 with regard to eligibility of the petitioner under the Scheme and to release the amount due to the petitioner under the Scheme within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sanction with regard to payment of subsidy was never granted and the Union of India has every right to refuse the grant of subsidy. He further fairly stated that respondent no.1/writ (3) R.P. No. 551/2016 petitioner is not at fault and the Bank ought to have forwarded the application complete in all respects within the prescribed period. Moreover, the period for granting subsidy is already over. As such, the order impugned cannot be implemented.
4. In reply, learned counsel for respondent no.1/writ petitioner has supported the order impugned and prayed for dismissal of the review petition.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show from the record that Union of India has discretion to refuse subsidy, once the case has been recommended by the Bank, which is agent of Union of India. He is also unable to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. Moreover, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case.
7. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs. Plni Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be (4) R.P. No. 551/2016 reviewed merely because it is erroneous. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that, "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."
8. As such, prayer of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. However, looking to the fact that three months' period within which compliance was to be made is already over, it is directed that compliance of the order impugned be now made within next three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid modification in the order impugned, this review petition is disposed of.
This order be read in conjunction with the order dated 12/9/16 passed in W.P. No. 4932/2013.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.A.Dharmadhikari)
Judge Judge
(and)
ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
2019.04.02
18:23:44
+05'30'