N GIRIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeal raise identical questions, they are dealt with under common order.

(2.) The facts which do not admit of any controversy lie in a narrow compass. We will take up W.Ps.Nos. 19028 and 19029 of 1990. The facts of these cases would be sufficient. The petitioners are agriculturists. They obtained loan facilities from the 2nd respondent -the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Hospet. The object of the loan was to purchase Tractors for agricultural operations. They bear Tractor Loan Nos. TR/6 and TR/23 respectively. As per the agreement entered into by the petitioners with the Bank, they undertook to pay the interest at 12.5 per cent per annum. A Subsidy Scheme was introduced by the Government of Karnataka in G.O.No. RDC 132 CLS 83 (II) Bangalore, dated 11-4-1983. The instalments for repaying the loan with interest fell due on 30th September and 31st March of every co-operative year. The petitioners have been regularly paying the same both the principal and interest without default. When the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent and wanted to pay the instalment due as on 30th September 1990, they were orally intimated that the interest subsidy of 5.5 per cent was no more in vogue. They were, therefore, required to pay interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent. The petitioners, on enquiry learnt that the action of the 2nd respondent in demanding the interest at 12.5 per cent as stipulated was due to the withdrawal of the Notification dated 11-4-1983 by G.O.No. CMW 260 CCB 88 dated 11-1-1990. The withdrawal was with effect from 28-3-1989 in a retrospective manner. Being aggrieved of the demand of interest at 12.5 per cent as a sequel to the Government Order dated 11-1-1990 the present Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeal have been preferred.

(3.) Two points are raised before us for consideration by all the petitioners. The first contention that is urged is it is on the basis of the Government Order dated 11-1-1990 the petitioners borrowed loan for agricultural purpose. Where, therefore, on the strength of the representation made in the Government Order, they were obliged to borrow and they had to their detriment acted on that representation, it is not open to the Government to withdraw the subsidy scheme under which concessions were granted on 11-4-1983. Therefore, this is a clear case of promissory estoppel. The same is not permissible in law. Hence the withdrawal is bad. In support of this submission reliance is placed on the Decisions in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ASST.) v. DHARMENDRA TRADING CO., AIR1988 SC 1247 , [1988 ]172 ITR395 (SC ), JT1988 (2 )SC 606 , 1988 (1 )SCALE973 , (1988 )3 SCC570 , [1988 ]3 SCR946 , [1988 ]70 STC59 (SC ); UNION OF INDIA v. ANGLO AFGHAN AGENCIES, AIR 1968 SC 718 @ 726: Para 18 and M.P. SUGAR MILLS v. STATE OF U.P., AIR1979 SC 621 , [1979 ]118 ITR326 (SC ), (1979 )2 SCC409 , [1979 ]2 SCR641 , [1979 ]44 STC42 (SC ). The second contention that is urged is, in any event, a Government Order cannot have retrospective application. It can have only prospective application. Only a Legislative has power to pass retrospective legislation. An administrative Government Order can never have retrospective operations. In support of this reliance is placed on Justice G.P. Singh's 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation at page 545 as well as the Decisions in IT. OFFICER, ALLEPPEY v. M.C. PONNOOSE, AIR1970 SC 385 , [1970 ]75 ITR174 (SC ), (1969 )2 SCC351 , [1970 ]1 SCR678 and SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI RICE MILLS v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR1976 SC 1471 , (1976 )3 SCC37 , [1976 ]3 SCR775 , 1976 (8 )UJ367 (SC ). Thus it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to succeed.