BIROO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. With consent of parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) THE grievance of he petitioner is that under Central Subsidy Scheme of the Central Government, the petitioner, intending to set up a new industrial unit, was entitled to subsidy at the rate of 25% of the capital assets created. It is not in dispute that this amount has to be appraised and certified to the financing institution and forwarded to the State Level Committee which, after appraising the said report, had to sanction the said amount. The finance institution, in the present case, is BICICO which as financing the unit in question and is a State Government undertaking. After sanction by the State Level Committee, the Slate Government has to make a recommendation to the Central Government which, under the said policy, is then obliged to disburse the said amount either to the State Government for disbursement to the unit or to the finance institution directly for disbursement to the unit. This subsidy is an outright grant to help industries set up and function to ensure long term liability. It is not in dispute that the unit was sanctioned a central capital subsidy of Rs. 17.24 lacs. It executed an agreement with BICICO but as the actual disbursement was being delayed, prayer that for the interregnum, it may be given a bridge loan. It may be mentioned here that bridge loan is a loan temporary in nature to tide over a temporary situation and carries interest which is normally charged on long term loan. It would, thus, be seen that bridge loan is not same as subsidy or any other financial assistance without liability to pay interest.

(3.) CERTAIN disbursement of Central Subsidy was also made. But, thereafter, the authorities appeared to have slept over the matter. It now appears and it is a position not disputed that the Central Government on 5.10.1998 (Annexure -15) paid BICICO directly Rs. 6.90 lacs towards balance Central subsidy under the Central Outright Grant Subsidy Scheme, 1971 to be paid to the petitioner. Regrettably BICICO, instead of paying the same to the petitioner, kept the same with it without any authority and without even disclosing this fact to (he petitioner which Itself is a matter of grave concern so far as the credibility of BICICO is concerned. It is Indeed surprising how a financial institution handling public money chooses to behave in such an outright mala fide manner. They were entrusted with this money by the Central Government to be paid to industrial units as Central Subsidy but they chose to misappropriate the same and it is only when the matter was brought to the notice of this Court, they admit having received the money almost a decade back.