Kerala High Court
Babu P.M vs The General Manager on 16 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.339 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 39399/2015(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
BABU P.M.
AGED 63 YEARS
M/S. GLEN TEA FACTORY, MANAGING PARTNER, PEERMADE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 531.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
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, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 531.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PEERMADE VILLAGE OFFICE, PEERMADE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 531.
SRI. TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR
RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.339 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P.CHALY,J
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.39399/2015 dated
1.2.2021, whereby the writ petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner
was not legally entitled to claim subsidy from the Idukki District Industries
Centre and therefore, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated to recover the
amounts paid as subsidy was justified. Brief material facts for the disposal of
the writ appeal are as follows;
2. Appellant is apparently a partner of a small scale tea industry
registered with the District Industries Centre, Idukki and functioning in the
name and style of Glen Tea Factory, Peermade, Idukki District. The case
projected by the appellant in the writ petition was that he purchased 125 kw
diesel generator set in connection with the operation of the tea factory in order
to overcome the frequent power failure on 2.7.1997 from M/s.Coimbatore
Electric and Engineering Corporation, Kochi as per invoice No.17 dated
2.7.1997. The price of the generator was Rs.6,92,725/-, which was purchased
with the financial assistance of M/s.India Cements Capital and Finance Limited,
Kottayam and the diesel set was delivered at the factory premises at Peermade
on 2.7.1997, evident from Exhibit P1. The appellant was provided with subsidy
of Rs.2,75,000/- by the District Industries Centre on production of the original
bill and related documents.
3. According to the appellant, as per the rules prevailing at the time of
purchase of the diesel generator, all successful entrepreneurs having SSI
registration were eligible for 50% of the bill amount as subsidy, which was not
refundable. Anyhow it was submitted by the appellant that the Directorate of
Industries and Commerce, Thiruvananthapuram, addressed the District
Industries Centre as per a communication dated 26.2.2001 informing that the
generator purchased by the appellant was in fact purchased by M/s.India
Cements Capital and Finance Limited, Kottayam from M/s. Coimbatore Electric
and Engineering Corporation, Kochi and therefore, appellant was not the buyer
of the diesel generating set and accordingly directed the District Industries
Centre, Idukki to recover the amount of subsidy from the appellant with
interest.
4. Apparently Exhibit.P2 has been issued on the strength of a report of the
local audit, and accounts and registers at the District Industries Centre, Idukki
during 05/1998 to 07/1999. Anyhow the revenue recovery proceedings to
recover the amount of Rs.6,92,725/- was initiated against the appellant
invoking the powers conferred under sections 7 & 34 of the Kerala Revenue
Recovery Act, 1968. Thereupon, appellant has challenged the revenue recovery
proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukkui, however,
the said case was dismissed by the Consumer Forum, Idukkui, as per Exhibit P8
order dated 8.7.2015 holding that the complaint was not maintainable before
the Forum. It was accordingly that the writ petition was filed seeking a writ of
mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding against the appellant
for recovery of subsidy amount granted to the appellant for the purchase of
generator set and a further mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent to hear
the appellant and the supplier of the generator set before coercive actions are
implemented.
5. District Industries Centre, Idukki, represented by its General Manager,
has filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining the circumstances under which
the recovery action was initiated against the appellant and also submitted that
the audit team found irregularities and directed to review the position in
consultation with higher authority and the Director of Industries and
Commerce, and accordingly has given direction to recover the amount with
interest as the action of sanctioning of subsidy to the unit was highly irregular,
as per letter dated 26.2.2001; that it was stated that as per rules of Small
Industries Subsidy manual, the authorities have the power to recover the
ineligible amount of subsidy from the party. So revenue recovery action was
taken and thereupon appellant has remitted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
6. The sum and substance of the contention put forth was that there was
no illegality or other legal infirmities on the part of the District Industries
Centre in making the requisition for recovery of the amount as the appellant
was not eligible for the subsidy .
7. The learned Single Judge, after having appreciated the rival
submissions made across the Bar and the pleadings and documents on record,
found that the generator set was actually purchased by M/s.India Cements
Capital and Finance Limited, Kottayam and the said company has given on hire
the generator set to the Managing Partner of Glen Tea Factory. It was
thereupon that the writ petition was dismissed.
8. We have heard counsel for appellant Sri.G.Hariharan, learned Senior
Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand and perused the pleadings and materials on
record.
9. On assimilation of the facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that the subsidy is given to small scale industries for the
purchase of various machineries by the State Government and it was
accordingly that the appellant applied and secured it on account of purchase of
the generator. However, later it was found by the audit department that the
appellant never purchased the generator set but the generator set was
purchased by M/s.India Cements Capital and Finance Limited, Kottayam, which
in turn has given the generator set on rent in favour of the appellant on hire
purchase basis. According to the District Industries Centre, only Small Scale
Industry, which has purchased the generator set alone was eligible for the
subsidy and which is not refundable. Admittedly, appellant has not purchased
the generator set and therefore, it is quite clear and evident that appellant was
not entitled to secure subsidy offered by the District Industries Centre with
which the small scale industry was registered, especially in view of the fact that
the subsidy was non refundable. It was on realising that the subsidy was
granted to an ineligible unit, directions were issued by the Directorate of
Industries of the State Government to recover the amounts illegally paid,
recovery action was initiated by the District Industries Centre, Idukki. It was
taking into account the aforesaid factual background that the learned Single
Judge found that appellant was not entitled to secure the reliefs as was sought
for in the writ petition.
10. On going through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
understanding the factual and legal situation as discussed above, we have no
hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error of
jurisdiction or illegality in arriving at the findings rendered in the judgment,
which dissuades us from exercising the jurisdiction conferred under section 5 of
the Kerala High Court Act in an intra court appeal.
Needless to say, the writ appeal fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
