VIJAY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order Annexure P/1 dated 22-7-2014 and to seek direction for sanctioning the subsidy @ 25% of the capital cost of the project under the "Gramin Bhandaran Yojna"; it is prayed the respondents No. 1 and 2 may be restrained from recovery of the amount of term loan to the extent of amount of subsidy admissible to the petitioner and also restrain them from charging interest to the extent of eligibility of subsidy. The direction has also been sought to adjust the amount of the interest already recovered by the Bank without adjustment of subsidy/advance subsidy against term loan amount.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the "Gramin Bhandaran Yojna" (hereinafter referred to as the 'Yojna') has been floated by the Central Government whereby the residents of India may get loan for construction of the godown (warehouse) in the rural area, on subsidy as specified therein, and it would be sanctioned as per the scheme of NABARD. Petitioner submitted a project for construction of a godown on the land situated in Tehsil Bagali, District Dewas to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Indore (now merged in the State Bank of India), Hatpipliya, District Indore. The total cost of the project was Rs. 56.54 lakhs out of which the petitioner deposited his own capital investment 16.72 lakhs and the term loan was worked out at Rs. 39.82 lakhs, which includes the eligible capital investment subsidy at Rs. 14.30 lakhs @ 25% of the total cost of project. The term loan was sanctioned on 28-3-2008. The first instalment was released on 31-3-2008, as reveal from the acknowledgement Annexure P/3 dated 1-4-2008.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that he is regularly paying the bank instalments and as per the scheme the project has been completed within the time so specified. The subsidy @ 15% has wrongly been sanctioned by the NABARD although he has applied under the category of "Farmer" to which subsidy @ 25% ought to be granted in view of the recommendation made by the Bank while sanctioning the loan. It is a further grievance of the petitioner the sanction of the subsidy was made belated vide order dated 4-3-2013 of the NABARD. However, during such period the bank has calculated the interest even on the amount of subsidy, which is liable to be repudiated and the interest on subsidy cannot be recovered from him, by the Bank. It is the further grievance, after issuance of the direction the rate of the subsidy accepted by the NABARD vide order Annexure P/1 dated 22-7-2014 is contrary to the guidelines applicable on the date of submission of the project accepting his loan, in the category "General" and not in the category of "Farmer". However, in view of the said submission referring various documents the relief as prayed for in the petition may be directed.