Delhi High Court
Kangra Herb Pvt Ltd. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 August, 2014
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.08.2014
+ W.P.(C) 12896/2009
KANGRA HERB PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr H.K. Monga and Mr Mohit Monga.
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr R Mishra,
: Mr Sanjiv Kr Saxena, Mr Mukesh Kr Tiwari
: and Mr Vidhur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying that the
respondents may be directed to sanction and release an amount of `400 lacs
to the petitioner company along with damages of `50 lakhs.
2. The principal controversy in the present petition is whether the case
of the petitioner had been recommended by respondent No.4 - Government
of Himachal Pradesh for disbursement of `400 lacs under a scheme
sponsored by the Central Government.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after due
appraisal of the petitioner's project, respondent no.4 had recommended a
sum of `400 lacs to be paid as subsidy under the said scheme. However,
respondent No.2 - Ministry of Agriculture had only disbursed a sum of
`3,13,38,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an undated
letter (annexed as Annexure P-14 to the petition) and submitted that the
said letter sent by Director Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh to the
Additional Commissioner, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India,
clearly indicated that a sum of `400 lacs was recommended to be disbursed
to the petitioner.
4. The respondent nos.1 and 2 dispute that a recommendation for
disbursal of `400 lacs was ever received by the said respondent.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
6. The short question to be addressed is whether the Government of
Himachal Pradesh had appraised petitioner's project and recommended a
subsidy of `400 lacs.
7. The Government of India, Ministry of Food Processing Industry -
respondent no. 1 herein, launched a scheme known as "Technology Mission
for Integrated Development of Horticulture in North Eastern States
including Sikkim, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal and Uttarakhand". The
financial outlay provided for the said scheme was to be expended in four
"Mini Missions". Mini Mission - IV related to foods processing industry.
8. It was explained that recommendations for disbursal of subsidy were
to be made by State Level Steering Committees (SLSC) of the respective
hill states after appraisal of the eligible projects. The Project Approval
Committee (PAC) constituted by respondent nos.1 and 2 were to examine
the recommendations and, if approved, disburse the amounts. It was stated
that 50% of the amount was to be disbursed initially and the balance 50%
of the amount approved would be disbursed after a joint inspection.
9. The relevant extract of the undated letter (annexed as P-14 to the
petition), which indicated that the petitioner's case was recommended for a
subsidy of `400 lacs reads as under:-
"Kindly refer to your letter no.40-3/2009 Hor. PM dated
20th April, 2009 on the subject cited above vide which the
representation received from Mr. Ra.Si.Guleria, Managing
Director, M/s. Kangra Herbs Pvt. Ltd., Vill. Dargella, Distt.
Kangra has been enclosed.
In this context the SLSC for Horticulture Technology
Mission the Department of Horticulture Himachal Pradesh has
already recommended to the Ministry of Food Processing
Industries, GOI, to release the approval amount of Rs.400 lakhs
in favour of the Managing Director of Kangra Herbs Pvt. Ltd
for the project (copy of correspondence enclosed)
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
You are therefore, requested to consider representation
positively and be releasing full subsidy to the said firm at the
earliest under Mini Mission."
10. A perusal of the above letter indicates that it was sent in response to
a letter dated 20.04.2009 pursuant to a representation received from the
petitioner. The letter indicates that the State Level Steering Committee
(SLSC) for Horticulture Technology Mission, Department of Horticulture,
Himachal Pradesh had recommended approval of an amount of `400 lacs in
favour of the petitioner company.
11. According to the respondents nos. 1 and 2, recommendation for only
a sum of `3,13,38,000/- was received from the SLSC of Himachal Pradesh.
Initially, a sum of `2,85,43,000/- was apprised by the Project Approval
Committee (PAC) and 50% of that amount - `1,42,71,000/- was disbursed
to the petitioner. Subsequently, joint inspections were conducted and it was
found that the initial recommendation made by the SLSC was justified.
Accordingly, the Project Approval Committee had disbursed a further sum
of `1,70,67,000/- to the petitioner.
12. The respondent No.4 - State Government of Himachal Pradesh had
filed its counter affidavit and has produced the recommendation made by
SLSC on 10.07.2007. The relevant extract of the said letter is quoted
below:-
"I am directed to forward herewith project proposal
under Mini-Mission-IV of Horticulture Technology Mission
after getting it approved from the State Project Approval
Committee for consideration and approval:
Sr. Name of the Project Proposal Details of the Projects/Assistance required
No. under Mini Mission-IV of HTM from Ministry
of Food Processing, Govt. of India
1 M/s Kangra herbs Pvt. Ltd. Total Cost of Project:- Rs.848.41 lacs
Village Dargella for the Means of Finance:-
Establishment of HI-Tech value Promoter's Share/contribution: Rs.170.00 lac
added Herbal Organic Food Term Loan from Bank: Rs.175.00 lac
Unit District Kangra SFAC Loan: Rs. 75.00 lac
Short Term Unsecured Loans Rs.428.41 lac
Funds Requirement MFP: Rs.313.38 lac
This Project Proposal has been approved by the
Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh being
the Chairman of the State Level Steering Committee of
Horticulture Technology Mission."
13. As the said recommendation and a letter dated 10.07.2007 relied
upon by the respondent No.4 was at variance with the record of the
petitioner, this court had directed the respondent No.4 to file an affidavit
explaining the same. Respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit indicating that
the mention of the sum of `400 lacs in the undated letter referred to by the
petitioner was an inadvertent error and the letter dated 10.07.2007 reflects
the recommendation made by SLSC of Himachal Pradesh.
14. It is apparent that the undated letter (Annexure P-14) referred to by
the petitioner is not the letter making the SLSC's recommendation. The
said letter only mentions that a recommendation had been made. The letter
dated 10.07.2007 is the letter that was forwarded to respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
In this view, there can be no dispute that SLSC of Himachal Pradesh had
not recommended a sum of `400 lacs for disbursal to the PAC. As the
procedure now stands PAC was required to examine the recommendation
and this was, undeniably, done. The amount as recommended by the SLSC
of Himachal Pradesh has since been disbursed.
15. The learned ASG has further drawn the attention of this court to the
minutes of a meeting of the PAC held on 21.06.2012. These minutes
indicate that PAC had further examined the case of the petitioner and had
found that the amount of subsidy could be enhanced to `3,42,15,711. The
learned ASG states that the balance amount could be disbursed provided
the same is recommended by the SLSC of Himachal Pradesh.
16. In the given circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner for
disbursal of the amount of `400 lakhs is not justified. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to approach the State Government for recommending
its case for the enhanced amount as already appraised by PAC. It is
expected that if such a recommendation is made to the PAC then the same
would be disbursed without any further delay.
17. The present petition is dismissed with the aforesaid direction.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AUGUST 29, 2014
pkv
