S. PANNERSELVAM Vs. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the separate orders all dated 18.05.2012 passed against the respective petitioners by the third respondent.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they are power-loom weavers and they are entitled for subsidy from the Government of Tamil Nadu under the scheme for modernization of power-loom introduced in the year 2002. According to the petitioners, only after scrutinising and verification of the respective petitioners' applications for grant of subsidy, the fourth respondent recommended to the second respondent for sanction and release of subsidy to all the petitioners under the aforesaid scheme and pursuant to the recommendation, the second respondent has also sanctioned the subsidy. It is the case of all the petitioners that pursuant to the said sanction on 14.03.2006 , they have availed the subsidy as early as in the year 2006 itself. However, according to the petitioners, all of a sudden, on 29.12.2011, the third respondent issued separate show cause notices to each of the petitioners, based on audit objections, calling upon them to pay back the subsidy amount, since they were ineligible to obtain the subsidy. Separate replies were also sent to the third respondent by each of the petitioners to the respective show cause notices. However, it is the case of the petitioners that by total non-application of mind, the third respondent passed separate impugned orders all dated 18.05.2012 against each of the petitioners without assigning any reason for return of subsidy amount which the petitioners have received in the year 2006 under the scheme introduced by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 08.05.2012 passed by the third respondent, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 2, 3 and 4. According to them, the petitioners are ineligible to obtain the subsidy under the scheme. Further it is their case that due to audit objections raised, because of the ineligibility of the petitioners to receive the subsidy, the third respondent called upon each of the petitioners to return the subsidy amount which they received from the fourth respondent. Therefore, according to them, the third respondent has applied its mind and only thereafter passed the impugned orders.