LAWS(APH)-2022-6-83

KANAPALA SANNI BABU Vs. A.V. PATEL

Decided On June 13, 2022
Kanapala Sanni Babu Appellant
V/S
A.V. Patel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner against respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 28307/2017 on the ground that they have not complied with the order dtd. 21/1/2020 in the said writ petition. This Court passed the order as follows:

(2.) The petitioner belongs to S.C. community and he is a businessmen. The Union Government to encourage the businessmen extended loan components to carry out various business houses. So far as the SC/ST businessmen are concerned, Union Government taken up special drive in extending helping hand for setting up infrastructure facilities and also granting subsidy facilities. The petitioner initially started production of granite cutting unit/polishing unit by obtaining loan and also by availing subsidy during the year 2008. By successful management the petitioner was able to repay the entire loan to the lending authority in the year 2009. While so, to expand his business he availed loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs repayable in instalments by giving security of site of 144.51 square yards situated in Guntur through its letter dtd. 4/5/2013. The 1st respondent after proper verification satisfied with the financial status of the petitioner issued letter dtd. 19/5/2015 to 3rd respondent recommending for sanction of subsidy of Rs.9,69,200.00 to the petitioner firm. Despite the proposal sent by 1st respondent for sanction of subsidy and in spite of the representations dtd. 16/2/2017 and 21/2/2017 made by the petitioner, the subsidy amount was not sanctioned to petitioner. Hence, the petitioner having waited for four years filed present writ petition wherein this Court directed the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition to consider the reports dtd. 10/10/2018 and 11/12/2018 of the Joint Inspection Committees and pass an appropriate order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(3.) The 1st respondent/1st contemnor filed the counter opposing the Contempt Case and contended thus: