NELLULPADAKA SAMITHI, Vs. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a registered society formed for promoting paddy cultivation in Wayanad District and to ensure stable marketing for the paddy produced. The society approached the Government with a proposal for setting up a parboiled rice mill at an estimated cost of Rs.457.00 lakhs. The Department of Agriculture accepted the proposal. Ext.P1 order was issued on 30/10/2012 according administrative sanction. Split up of the total estimated cost is detailed in Ext.P1. In Ext.P1, it is mentioned that an MOU shall be signed between the Department and the petitioner society. Ext.P10 MOU was executed between the society and the Director of Agriculture. By Ext.P2 order dtd. 10/5/2013, Ext.P1 order was partly modified. The eligible subsidy was decided to be released in installments of 25% on completion of 25% of work and next 25% on completion of 50% of work. Third 25% was fixed to be released on completion of 75% of work and the remaining amount, 25%, was decided to be disbursed on commissioning of the rice mill. On the basis of recommendation made by the Monitoring Committee, on 20/1/2014, an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs was released in favor of the petitioner. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs was also released in favor of the convener. Thus a total sum of Rs.55.00 lakhs was released in favor of the petitioner society. However, no further payment is made as per MOU under Exts.P1 and P2 orders. Ext.R2(d) dtd. 19/9/2015 issued by the Secretary to Government to the Director of Agriculture shows that the proposal for establishing the mill was rejected by its Working Group in its meeting held on 7/9/2015 for the reasons mentioned in the letter. It is also mentioned in Ext.R2(d) that the next installment shall be released only as per the opinion of the technical committee limited to original sanction.

(2.) Petitioner approached this court praying for direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to release the 3 rd installment of financial assistance. A direction to the 2 nd respondent to take effective measures to enable completion and commissioning of the project was also sought. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, various reasons have been stated for not sanctioning any further installments. Several allegations have been raised against the President of the Society in the counter affidavit. The 2 nd respondent has alleged in the counter affidavit that the President of the Society is guilty of serious lapses in the matter of implementing the project. Petitioner has denied the allegations against him byfiling a reply affidavit.

(3.) I have heard Sri.C.Dinesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the President of the Society had provided two acres of land to the Society for implementation of the Project and construction of the building was complete. He contended that initial payments were made by the Government on the basis of certificates issued by the Engineer of the Local Self Government Department. Thereafter, the concerned officers raised disputes regarding competence of the Engineer who issued such certificates and this resulted in the stalemate. He submitted that the Government is bound to honor the commitment made by way of entering into an MOU with the society. According to the learned counsel no sufficient reasons are there for withholding the payment of installments. He submitted that the project intended for the benefit of agriculturists engaged in cultivation of paddy has been defeated with the callous attitude of the officers of the Government. The learned Government Pleader opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He referred to the averments in the counter affidavit and pointed out that several serious lapses were there on the part of the petitioner in implementing the project. He denied the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute was only with regard to the competency of the Engineer who issued certificates regarding the progress of construction. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner failed to obtain loan and also to stick on to the various obligations under Ext.P10 MOU.