Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This writ petition has been filed to call for records on the file of the second respondent bearing No.:1(5) CLCSS/Unit Assn./14-15, dated 02.11.2015 refusing to release the subsidy to the petitioner, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the subsidy amounting to a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to the petitioner being a registered SSI unit with Entrepreneur Memorandum No.330021210361 (Part- II), Small

2. It is stated that the petitioner is a registered SSI unit and was engaged in the printing business since 2008. During the course of such business, the petitioner approached the 5th respondent for financial assistance to develop their business and the same was considered by sanctioning a term loan of Rs.191.40 lakhs on 06.04.2010 for purchase of machineries. At that time, the petitioner came to know about a scheme for technology upgradation viz., Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS) mooted by the 1st respondent (MSME), which was in force from the year 2000-2001. Based on the MSME Guidelines, dated 30.05.2011 and SIDBI GSC Circular, dated 25.11.2011, the petitioner submitted an application to the 5th respondent on 20.12.2011 requesting to sanction Credit Linked Capital Subsidy of a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. The 5th respondent in turn forwarded the said application to the third and fourth respondents for processing. It is the contention of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner that the said application was received by the 3rd respondent on 23.12.2011, well within the time limit prescribed by the respondents 1 and 2, however, the application has not been processed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order which does not contain any reasons as to why the claim of the petitioner was rejected. She submitted that the petitioner submitted the application seeking subsidy of Rs.15 lakhs under CLCSS scheme before the 5th respondent, well before the cut off date while so, the rejection of claim of the petitioner for subsidy at a later date on the ground of belated submission of application is contrary to facts. She further submitted that the petitioner had submitted the application to avail credit facility along https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis with requisite documents by strictly following the Circulars / Guidelines issued by the respondents, within the time limit and therefore, she vehemently argued that there is no delay attributable on the part of the petitioner in submitting the application. She vehemently pointed out that there is no specific mention either in the Circular, dated 25.11.2011 issued by the respondents or any Communication indicating the last date for submission of the application, but the cut off date i.e., 10.12.2011 was imposed by the third respondent, that too after a period of five years when the scheme came into force. In any event, the rejection of the application is without any valid reasons. Further, the applications submitted by similarly placed persons like that of the petitioner were considered even after an inordinate delay of a month and hence, the discrimination shown by the respondents in the instant case is non-est in law.

6. Denying the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted his arguments based on the counter affidavit. He submitted that the petitioner unit is not eligible for subsidy under CLCSS Scheme inasmuch as they have submitted the application for subsidy belatedly only on 20.12.2021. He further submitted that the petitioner unit availed benefits in another scheme and therefore, they are not entitled to benefits of the CLCSS Scheme. It is stated that the respondents 4 and 5 received the application submitted by the petitioner with delay. In view of such delay, the bank has forwarded the application to the nodal office on 17.02.2022. Subsequently, the bank has forwarded certain additional documents sought for by NABARD. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the third respondent-NABARD by referring to the delay in submitting the application. According to the respondents 4 and 5, the last date for filing the application for the period between 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011 was 10.12.2021. The petitioner submitted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the claim petition only on 20.12.2011. Above all, the petitioner has already availed a term loan facility for Rs.191.40 lakhs during the year 2010 for importing offset printing machine from Japan. Based on the loan amount, on 23.12.2010, the petitioner has purchased the machineries. Ultimately, on 25.01.2011, the machineries were installed by the petitioner.