R. FLOWER Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first and the second respondents to grant the benefit of the subsidy Scheme of NABARD with regard to the Rural Godown constructed by the petitioner at 1) 2/146S-1 Sterlite Main Gate, Madurai Bye Pass Road, Millavittan Village, Tuticorin 628 002 and 2) 2/146S-II Sterlite Main Gate, Madurai Bye Pass Road, Millavittan Village, Tuticorin 628 002 and release a sum of Rs. 22,44,340/-. The facts leading to the Writ Petition is that the petitioner is the first generation educated Women Entrepreneur. She availed a term loan facility of Rs. 40.00 Lakhs for construction of a Rural Go-down under NABARD subsidy Scheme in the year 2007 from the respondent bank. As per the terms and conditions, the loan has to be repaid in 120 monthly installments of Rs. 33,333/- per month with a holiday period of 12 months from the date of sanction. While so, the petitioner had availed yet another term loan for construction of Rural Godown under NABARD Subsidy Scheme for a sum of Rs. 55.00 Lakhs which was to be repaid in 120 monthly installment of Rs. 43,833/- and with a holiday period of 12 months from the date of sanction. As per the Subsidy Scheme of NABARD, the petitioner was sanctioned for the first term loan of Rs. 40.00 Lakhs and for the second term loan of Rs. 55.00 Lakhs respectively.

(2.) The respondent Bank neither adjusted the subsidy amount granted by the NABARD nor took up the matter with the second respondent for settling the matter amicably. However, returned the said subsidy amount to the second respondent NABARD. When the petitioner approached NABARD, they informed that it is for the first respondent bank to adjust the amount and they do not have a say in this matter. The reason for not adjusting/releasing the subsidy amount by the second respondent was that as per the NABARD Scheme once the account become a Non-performing Asset the subsidy amount cannot be credited to the borrowers account in view of the letter dated 19.04.2012 issued by the second respondent. According to the said letter, "if the bank account becomes NPA and the financing bank fails to recover the entire dues, subsidy benefit would not be available for the project. Accordingly, in cases where subsidy is released, the same has to be returned to the Government of India through NABARD. Whereas, the Debts Recovery Tribunal had interpreted the above aspect to the effect that recovery of 'entire dues' would mean recovery of the 'entire amount' and not amount settled after granting concession to the petitioner. In this connection, the petitioner sent a representation dated 12.12.2014 to NABARD requesting it to direct the first respondent to refund the subsidy amount. Whereas, till date there is no reply from NABARD". Though the petitioner approached the NABARD for refund of subsidy amount, it advised the petitioner to approach the first respondent bank to refund the subsidy amount. Pursuant to which, the petitioner made another representation to the first respondent in this regard on 07.01.2015. Still, the first respondent did not choose to reply for the letter dated 07.01.2015. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant the benefit of subsidy scheme of NABARD with regard to the rural godown constructed by the petitioner firm by the respondents to the tune of Rs. 22,44,340/- being the subsidy amount.

(3.) The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that as per the subsidy Scheme, the second respondent NABARD will release the subsidy amount to the participating bank and the same will be kept in the "Subsidy Reserve Fund of the Concerned Borrower" since it is a back end subsidy. The second respondent NABARD has released the subsidy amount of Rs. 18,31,340/-. The borrower is eligible for the subsidy amount only when he complied with all the conditions of the said Scheme. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not complied with the conditions and defaulted in repayment of her loan and thus the loan account of the petitioner turned 'Non-performing Asset'. Therefore, she is not eligible for subsidy and the first respondent bank returned the said subsidy amount to the second respondent NABARD as per the extant guidelines/scheme of Government of India.