SHYAMBAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court claiming to be partners of M/s. Shree Rambaa Warehouse, otherwise wife and husband sought writ of mandamus against the respondents No.2 and 3 claiming subsidy at the rate of 33.33% for construction of aforesaid warehouse by the farmers on land admeasuring 0.670 hectare falling in survey No.1003 situated at village Tukaral, Tehsil Tarana, District Ujjain which was denied on the premise that (i) income tax returns of previous three years from the date of application do not disclose either the description of respondent No.2, Omprakash Sharma as 'farmer' or the income from the agriculture; (ii) the entitlement of the warehouse was found to be at the rate of 15%; (iii) the promoter's contribution is less than 25% of the total financial outlay disclosed; (iv) the petitioners are not eligible for subsidy in terms of the prevailing guidelines, (v) petitioners may submit revised claim complying with the Rural Godown Scheme guidelines vide communication dated 05/11/2015 (Annexure P/7).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to criticize the impugned communication referring to Annexure P/1 at page 13 that total cost of the warehouse is Rs.60.00 lakhs out of which breakup disclosed was promoters contribution Rs.12.00 lakhs, Bank loan Rs.45..00 lakhs and other sources, Rs.3.00 lakhs. Under the circumstances, other sources ought to have been clubbed with promoter's contribution making total 15.00 lakhs, i.e., 25%. That has not been. Hence, the impugned communication is bad in law. The petitioners be held entitled for 33.33% subsidy for construction of the aforesaid warehouse.

(3.) Contesting respondents have filed detailed counter-affidavit and justified rejection of claim for subsidy on more than one counts; (i) though the application was filed in the name of M/s Rambaa Warehouse but, the firm is not a party. Hence, no relief can be granted under the scheme; (ii) under the scheme for proving the status as farmer and main source of income from agricultural, the applicant is required to submit three years income tax returns prior to sanction of loan or an affidavit in support thereof. The income tax returns for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 submitted on 08/07/2015 had shown agricultural income 'nil' though in the subsequent year 2014-15, major income is shown to be 'agriculture' but, the same is of no relevance under the scheme; (iii) the entitlement of a firm for subsidy is 25% subject to the condition that promoters/owners contribution is 25% and above of the total financial outlay is 20% whereas in the instant case, the promoter's contribution is 12.00 lakhs. Hence, the claim for 33.33% was held to be not maintainable. Respondents have also explained the delay in consideration of the claim for the reason that there was a closure of the scheme for a over a period of one year and no sooner, the same was revived, the application was received from the concerned Bank, processed and rejected for the reasons mentioned in the communication dated 05/11/2015. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.