K. Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka
2024 Latest Caselaw 552 Kant

Karnataka High Court

K. Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:810
                                                           WP No. 14376 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 14376 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
                      BETWEEN:

                            K. VENKATESH,
                            S/O KUBERA NAIKA,
                            AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                            AGRICULTURIST,
                            R/AT CHIKKABENNURU VILLAGE,
                            BARAMASAGARA HOBLI,
                            CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 517.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                            REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
Digitally signed by         AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
PADMAVATHI B K
                            M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    BANGALORE - 560 001.
KARNATAKA

                      2.    THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE,
                            AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
                            SESHADRI ROAD,
                            BANGALORE - 560 009.

                      3.    THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
                            AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
                            APMC ROAD,
                            CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.
                               -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:810
                                        WP No. 14376 of 2023




4.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE,
     CHITRADURGA ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

5.   THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
     AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
     CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

6.   THE SENIOR ASST. DIRECTOR OF
     HORTICULTURE, CHITRADURGA ZILLA
     PANCHAYATH,
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

       THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE R-4 BEARING THO U NI/ZP/CHIDU/THASA-
1/KRUBHAYO/187/2016-17              VIDE          ANNEXURE-H
DATED:19.03.2017 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND
ETC.

       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Heard Sri. B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned AGA appearing

for the respondents.

NC: 2024:KHC:810

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the

following prayers:

"a) Quash the order passed by the 4th respondent bearing THO U NI/ZP/CHIDU/THASA-

1/KRUBHAYO/187/2016-17 vide Annexure-H dated 19.03.2017 by issuing a writ of certiorari.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the balance of subside amount of Rs 11,54,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of completion of the work till payment forthwith to the petitioner.

c) Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment

rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.5708/2023 disposed on 17.11.2023, wherein it has

held as follows:

"2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that identical endorsement which had become a subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.5003/2021, is quashed and a direction is issued for payment of the remaining subsidy along with interest.

3. Learned HCGP would admit that the issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the co- ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ petition. The co- ordinate Bench has held as follows:

" In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

NC: 2024:KHC:810

a) Quash the order passed by the 4th respondent bearing THO U NI/ZP/CHIDU/THASA-

1/KRUBHAYO/177/2016-17 vide Annexure-J dated 19/03/2017 by issuing a writ of certiorari.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the balance of subside amount of Rs.4,51,350/- forthwith to the petitioner.

c) Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.

2. On 11.08.2021, the following order was passed:-

"Respondent No.4-The Deputy Director of Horticulture, Chitradurga Zilla Panchayat, Chitradurga district is hereby directed to file affidavit in furnishing the details of the matter and also what is the last date to complete the project work. Further, when completion certificate is issued to the petitioner that he has undertaken the project on 01.01.2016 and it is completed on 20.04.2016 and whether inspection was conducted on 05.06.2021 after issuing number of directions in the present case is correct or not? He is also hereby directed to appear in person along with records before this Court on the next date of hearing.

I.A.No.1/2021 for impleading Chief Executive Officer do not survive for consideration in view of the order dated 23.07.2021.

Re-list this petition on 18.08.2021."

3. Today, respondent No.4-The Deputy Director of Horticulture, Chitradurga Zilla Panchayat, Chitradurga District is present before this Court and has filed an affidavit dated 18.08.2021. Paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the affidavit reads as under:-

"3. I submit that, during 2015-16 as per the guidelines of the project dated 29.07.2015 of Krishi Bhagya Yojane, the unit cost of shade net is

NC: 2024:KHC:810

Rs.710/- per square meter and cropping pattern Rs.140/- per square meter, based on the same, I issued work Order to petitioner on 21.12.2015, for construction of Shade Net in his land of area 1500 square meter, the petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe Community hence as per the guidelines he is eligible for 90% subsidy, for 1500 Square Meter Total Unit Cost-Rs.10,65,000/- (Shade Net) and Rs.2,10,000/- (Cropping pattern) Total Unit Cost - Rs.12,75,000/-. As per the work order petitioner is eligible for 90% subsidy of amount at Rs.11,47,500/-. The petitioner has started construction of Shade Net work against Work Order on 21.12.2015 and partially completed work on 20.04.2016 for which he received subsidy of Rs.4,79,250/- on 40.06.2016 and after for adaption of high value vegetable production Rs.2,16,900/- on 22.03.2017, Total Subsidy Amount of Rs.6,95,250/- is received by petitioner.

4. I submit that, as per the krishi Bhagya yojane/National Horticulture Mission Guidelines from the date of issue of work order, within 15 days the petitioner should start the work and within 45 days one should complete the work and also the work order is issue with clear terms and conditions. The Petitioner got work order on 21.12.2015 and submitted the proposal to claim subsidy on 20.04.2016.

5. I submit that, the Inspection was conducted on 05.06.2021 and visited the petitioner's land situated at vaddarasiddavvanahally, Chitradurga District, to get the feedback of the project by the petitioner. The main object of the project is to improve the economic status of the Farmers. During inspection of the said land it was observed that the Shade Net structure for which subsidy was availed is removed and petitioner agreed that he has removed the shade net structure. As per the records / documents the petitioner completed the Shade Net work on 20.04.2016 and the Government order dated 20.05.2016 stipulates that only if work is completed before 23.04.2016, the petitioner is eligible as per old cost norms,

NC: 2024:KHC:810

otherwise the petitioner would be eligible as per new norms."

4. It is not disputed that petitioner is entitled to subsidy in terms of the policy decision of the Government. Therefore, he is eligible to 90% subsidy. Respondents have disbursed subsidy of Rs.6,95,250/- and the remaining amount is yet to be settled. In the result, petitioner was compelled to file this petition. On receipt of notice of this petition, respondents had undertaken inspection on 05.06.2021 instead of taking earlier inspection as and when he had completed his work. Completion report has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner vide Annexure-G wherein the affidavit filed by respondent No.4 is silent in respect of Annexure-G. In the light of these facts and circumstances, concerned respondent is hereby directed to calculate balance subsidy amount and disburse the same along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of completion of work till payment is made.

With the above observation, writ petition stands allowed."

4. Learned HCGP would raise objections to the interest part of it, as is directed by the concerned Court, should be proved, as the petitioner is seeking quashment of an endorsement dated 20.03.2017 by filing a petition on 06.03.2023. Six years thereafter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it was the duty of the Government to pay subsidy in its entirety for which purpose an agriculturist should not be penalized.

6. The fact remains that identical endorsements issued to all the agriculturists who were seeking subsidy was between 19.03.2017 and 20.03.2017. The first of the challenge came before this Court on in a petition filed in W.P.No.5003/2021. The challenge was accepted on 18.08.2021. When identical endorsement was quashed by this Court, it became the duty of the

NC: 2024:KHC:810

State to release the remaining subsidy to all similarly situated persons and not making every agriculturist to knock at the doors of this Court.

7. The State as it is known for its wont has not acted upon the order that is passed on 18.08.2021. Therefore, the petitioner does become entitled to payment of remainder of subsidy forthwith along with interest at 6% per annum from 18.08.2021, till the date it reaches the petitioner."

4. In the light of the issue standing covered by

judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench supra, the

petition stands disposed on the same terms.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK

CT:SNN