K. SANDHYARANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.108 framing certain operational guidelines for implementation of incentives for establishment of industrial enterprises in AP under new/expansion/ diversification categories within the frame work of industrial development policy during the period of 2015-2020, sectoral policies i.e., automobile and automobile component police 2015-2020, textile and apparel policy 2015- 2020, bio-technology policy 2015-2020, MSME policy 2015-2020, aerospace and defence manufacturing policy 2015-2020 and further stated in the GO that all other industries commencing production after issue of operational guidelines, the claim applications shall be submitted as per the time limit prescribed in the operational guidelines. The petitioner applied for the establishment of aqua industries by name and the style of M/s.Chaitanya Aqua Industries established in Survey No.380/4, D.No.1-16, Alluru Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam district and the same was approved by the government and issued license vide Form-C license No.10122008000402 valid till 15/7/2023. Initially the unit was established in the year 2016 for total cost of unit at Rs.124.49 lakhs towards land, buildings, plant and machinery respectively. The investment subsidy prior to DCP (Date of Commencement of Commercial Production) will be sanctioned and released @ 35% and 45% of the eligible investment subsidy as 1 and 2 instalments respectively in "paripassu" mode along with term loan by the District and Chairman, DIPC (District Industries Promotion Committee), commissioner of industries &Chairman, SLC as the case may be subject to availability of budget under SCSP/TSP (Schedule Caste Sub plan/Tribal Sub Plan) as per condition NO.6/4/10 and The final 20% investment subsidy will be sanctioned and released by the DIPC/SLC as case may be after the commencement of commercial production. Further, prior to granting the term loan as well as release the investment subsidy, the petitioner has been started the production and supply of bottled and packaged drinking water from my unit from March 2022 only. But the subsidy amount not yet released even after recommendations made by the District Collector as well as the District Industries center rep. by its General Manager as well as the District Industries Officer Ongole, Prakasam District. But the petitioner was discriminated by the authorities without sanction and release of the subsidy amount which was already invested for the establishment of unit and the 2nd respondent corporation released the amount for month wise and due to the said reason, she started the production in the month of March 2022 onwards and still the balance will be kept with the corporation without release the 3rdinstalments as per the conditions 6/4/11 of the GO MS N.108 of Industries and Commerce, dtd. 14/11/2015. While so, the 2nd respondent issued demand notice vide Ref.No.AFC/A/c.No.68025002&3/2022-23/2933, dtd. 16/2/2023 under Sec. 29 of SFC Act, 1951 demanding to clear dues of Rs.70.14 lakhs. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The respondents 2 and 3 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the respondent Corporation sanctioned term loan (reappraisal) of Rs.62.28 lakhs for setting up of a Bottled and Packaged drinking water unit, in a leasehold premises at Sy.No.380/4, D.No.1-16, Main Road, Allur (V), Kothapatnam (M), Prakasam District. The said firm is a proprietary concern of which Smt.Kathi Sandhya Rani, W/o.M.PrasadaRao was the sole proprietrix. The DIC has released subsidy of Rs.56.04 lakhs on 29/6/2020, the Corporation released 1st & 2nd Instalments aggregating to Rs.44.825 Lakhs together with the Term Loan of Rs.67.03 Lakhs on paripasu mode. Thus the total amount released to the promoter including Term Loan and Investment subsidy is Rs.111.855 Lakhs and the same was taken to the notice of District Industries Centre (DIC). The letters addressed by the petitioner was duly replied by the respondent corporation, duly intimating the rules and regulations to the petitioner, stating that the request of the petitioner is not acceptable in terms of the procedure in vogue. It is further stated that with regard to the Extension of moratorium for payment of EMI and overdue principal for One year, the request of the petitioner can only be considered if the propritrix is regular in payment of loan instalments and further there shall be no arrears in the loan account. The respondent Corporation advised the petitioner either to clear the total arrears in the loan account or to comply the norms of the Corporation to enable the 3rd respondent to forward a detail note to the 2nd respondent to examine their request for extension of moratorium period for principal amount. It is further stated that through the alleged letter dtd. 28/11/2022 of the Joint Director, the Office of Director of Industries has requested to examine the requests made by the petitioner with regard to cancellation of interest arrears, release of working capital, extension of one year moratorium for payment of principal amount and stoppage of proceedings under Sec. 29 of State Financial Corporations' Act, 1951. On receipt of the letter, the Corporation has communicated several times to the petitioner stating that as per procedure in vogue, the requests of the petitioner is not acceptable and requested her to clear the arrears and upgrade the loan amount. But, the petitioner did not choose for payment of arrears and continuously forwarding similar letters which are not acceptable as per the procedural norms of the Corporation. As such, the recovery action initiated by the Corporation is valid and justifiable and the Corporation is left with no other option except to proceed with the recovery action under Sec. 29 of SFC's Act, 1951 to recover its dues and issued demand notice under Sec. 29 of SFC's Act, 1951 on 30/5/2022 and later on due to appropriation of subsidy amount of Rs.11.20 Lakhs to the loan account, again granted time to petitioner to repay the arrears but the petitioner failed to repay the loan arrears to the Corporation, As such, a Demand Notice vide Ref.No.AFC/A/c.No.68025002&3/2022-23/2933was again issued on 16/2/2023 under Sec. 29 of SFC's Act, 1951 to recover its dues and the same is legal and justifiable. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.