Kerala High Court
Babu P.M. vs The General Manager on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/12TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.39399 OF 2015(Y)
PETITIONER:
BABU P.M.,M/S.GLEN TEA FACTORY,
MANAGING PARTNER, PEERMADE,
685531, IDUKKI DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SRI.SHINE VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
IDUKKI DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE,
CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI COLONY P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, 685 602
2 DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR),
TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE-685 531,
DISTRICT IDUKKI
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PEERMADE VILLAGE OFFICE,
PEERMADE 685 531 (DISTRICT IDUKKI)
R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RASHMI K.M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.39399/2015
:2 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2021
The petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of
M/s.Glen Tea Factory, has filed this writ petition seeking to
restrain respondents 1 to 3 from proceeding against the
petitioner for recovery of subsidy amount granted to the
petitioner for the purchase of generator set mentioned in
Ext.P1. The petitioner seeks for further direction to hear the
petitioner and the supplier of the generator on the question as
to who is the actual purchaser of the generator set.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner's factory is a
small scale tea industry registered under the General
Manager, District Industries Centre. The petitioner purchased
125 KW diesel generator on 02.07.1997 from M/s.Coimbatore
Electric and Engineering Corporation as per invoice No.17
dated 02.07.1997. The diesel generator cost ₹6,92,725/-.
WP(C)No.39399/2015
The petitioner was provided with a subsidy of ₹2,75,000/- by
the 1st respondent on production of bills and other documents.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner was proceeded against
under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovering the subsidy
granted to the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the
revenue recovery is based on a local audit conducted by the
1st respondent. In fact, the 1 st respondent has only sought
clarification as to how subsidy of ₹2,79,137/- was paid to the
petitioner on the basis of invoice showing the position that the
generator set was sold to M/s.India Cements Capital and
Finance Limited. On the basis of such letters seeking
clarification, revenue recovery cannot be effected, contends
the petitioner. The petitioner would further submit that the
generator set was hypothecated to the financier and was
actually delivered to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 certificate
issued by the seller. In such circumstances, the revenue
recovery proceedings are unsustainable.
4. The respondents contested the writ petition filing
counter affidavit. The 1st respondent in his counter affidavit
WP(C)No.39399/2015
stated that as per Rules of SIS Manual, the authorities have
the power to recover the ineligible amount of subsidy from the
beneficiary. If the unit which availed SIS has made breach of
any terms and conditions, then the unit is liable to refund the
entire amount together with 14% interest. The 1 st respondent
would further submit that the generator set was actually sold
to M/s. India Cements Capital and Finance Limited, Kottayam
and the petitioner's factory was only a hirer. For any
generator or any other machinery taken on hire, the
investment subsidy cannot be provided with. The petitioner
was served with a notice as evident from Ext.R1(c).
Therefore, it is evident that opportunity was given to the
petitioner to advance his case. In view of the conditions for
grant of investment subsidy, the subsidy granted to the
petitioner was irregular and it is liable to be revoked,
contended the learned Government Pleader.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. From Ext.R1(a) invoice, it can be seen that the
generator set was sold to M/s. India Cements Capital and
WP(C)No.39399/2015
Finance Limited, Kottayam. "The Managing Partner, Glen Tea
Factory" is shown as hirer. In view of the conditions for grant
of investment subsidy, a hirer cannot be extended with
subsidy. As the material document Ext.R1(a) shows that M/s.
India Cements Capital and Finance Limited, Kottayam is the
entity to which the generator is sold, the petitioner will not be
legally entitled to claim subsidy. The revenue recovery
proceedings are therefore justified.
In such circumstances, I find no merit in the writ
petition and the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/01.02.2021
WP(C)No.39399/2015
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
15.12.2015 ISSUED BY M/S. COIMBATORE
ELECTRIC AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION,
RAVIPURAM ROAD, KOCHI 682016 EVIDENCING
SUPPLY OF 125 KVA DIESEL GENERATING SET
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
26.02.2001 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
REPORT ON THE LOCAL AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTS
AND REGISTERS OF THE DISTRICT INDUSTIES
CENTRE, IDUKKI FOR THE PERIOD 05/98 TO
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE RR ACT ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINT
THE PETITIONER DEMANDING A SUM OF
RS.6,92,725/- WITH INTEREST @ 7.5%
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 345 OF THE RR ACT ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
AGAINT THE PETITIONER DEMANDING A SUM OF
RS.6,92,725/- WITH INTEREST @ 7.5%
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED U/S12(1)
OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT BY THE
PETITIONER OF CDRF IDUKKI ON 17.12.2012
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH EXHIBIT
P6 PROCEEDINGS
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2015
MADE IN CC.NO.310/2012 BEFORE THE CDRF
WP(C)No.39399/2015
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.17 DATED
07.06.1997.
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.FC2-1765/01 L-
DIS DATED 26.02.2001.
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1/302/2001
DATED 11.10.2001.
ncd
