PRESSMENS MULTIPURPOSE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to release the amount of grant with interest in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner which is a trust and working as a Non Government Organization claims the release of the grant under the Scheme floated by the Government of India and it is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner has performed its part as per the scheme, the amount due to the petitioner is not being released. As a result, the petitioner is facing loss for the expenditure incurred by the petitioner in furtherance with the object of the scheme.

(2.) It is submitted that periodically the Central Government had released the grant and the petitioner was also paid part from such grant for particular period and therefore, the work carried out by the petitioner was as per the scheme. It is submitted that for the period 2013 to 2014 the petitioner was paid and for the year 2015 to 2016 and 2016 onwards, though Central Government had released its share of the grant as per the scheme and an order was passed on 22.11.2017 to release the grant in favour of the petitioner, the same is not being paid. The order of 2017 was for releasing the grant in favour of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6,00,900/-. It is submitted that while issuing the release order, the respondent-Central Government had taken into consideration all the aspects including the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and other documents regarding the work of the petitioner as per the scheme and incurring of expenditure. It is submitted that for the period between 2016 to 2017, total amount of expenditure comes to Rs.18,11,700/-.

(3.) It is submitted that in fact the respondent No.3 had passed the release order directing the respondent No.4 to release the amount of Rs.6,00900/- on 22.11.2017, however, the respondent No.4 has not complied with such order of his superior and has not released the grant. It is submitted that the reason behind in action of respondent No.4 is an extraneous demand made by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 is insisting of illegal documentary evidence for the sanctioned amount and for which he had asked the petitioner to make payment in particular account of a person with whom the petitioner has no connection and as the petitioner has not complied with such illegal demands, the grant is not released in favour of the petitioner.