KADAMBINI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Shailendra Mukati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Jyoti Tiwari, learned Dy. GA for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) Petitioner's contention is that a scheme was floated by Government of India for establishing industries in rural areas known as Consortium Bank Credit Scheme and under the scheme 65% of the principal amount was required to be sanctioned by the Bank, 30% per cent of the amount was to be sanctioned by Madhya Pradesh Khadi Gram Udyog Board as a margin money and 5% of the amount was required to be paid by the borrower himself. Petitioner has further stated that project was sanctioned by the State Level Project Appraisal Committee in its meeting dated 27-3-1999 and petitioner was granted total loan of Rs. 9.80 lacs and the margin money i.e. 30% of the amount was Rs. 2.94 lacs. Petitioner has further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the sanction order as well as the scheme, after availing the loan she has applied for grant of subsidy and the same was well within the knowledge of the respondents. Petitioner further stated that in spite of the fact that she has paid the entire loan amount by adhering to the time schedule, the respondent No. 2 has not granted subsidy to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2.94 lacs as sanctioned by sanctioned order dated 29-5-1999 and on the contrary without releasing the margin money, R.R.C dated 15-1-2010 has been issued which is impugned in the present writ petition. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of subsidy, dated 31-3-2010 (Annexure-P-14). Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Bajrang Extraction Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. The Secretary to the Government of M. P. and others, 1993 AIR(MP) 202 and his contention is that keeping in view the aforesaid judgment as an Industry was established in a backward area (rural area) and the unit has fulfilled all the conditions of the scheme, the claim of the unit could not have been rejected on the ground that it was not processed before expiry of time limit.

(3.) Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4 and the stand of the Madhya Pradesh Khadi and Gram Udyog Board is that the present writ petition is not maintainable as action has been initiated under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1988 and the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. The Madhya Pradesh Khadi and Gram Udyog Board has not filed any reply on merits.