ORDER
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought an appropriate order or direction to restrain the respondents from recovering the amount of 15% investment subsidy i.e. Rs. 36,975/- paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the notice dated 15.12.1991 and 14.2.1992 with a direction to the respondents to close the proceedings for recovery of the aforesaid amount of subsidy paid to the petitioner.
2. There is no dispute that 15% subsidy amount of Rs. 36,975/- on the capital investment was disbursed to the petitioner. The dispute is only with regard to the fact as to whether withdrawal of the scheme for grant of subsidy by the Central Government on 30.9.1988 will have any effect on the petitioner who was granted subsidy subsequently on 25.11.1988 (vide Annexure-3) in respect of which application was filed by the petitioner in March, 1988.
3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that case of the petitioner is covered by a judgment of this Court dated 22.12.1993 rendered in Goyal Ice Industries v. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 719/1993, wherein it has been held that it is the date of application which is relevant for grant of subsidy and not the actual date of grant. In the said decision, the case of Ashoka Oil Industries v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 827/ 1990, decided on 1.3.1993, was referred to and relied.
4. Submission of Dr. Khangarot is that this Court has considered the case of Ashoka Oil Industries (supra) in the case of Bhartiya Laghu Udyog v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 615/1994, decided on 25.7.2006, wherein it has been held the case of Ashoka Oil Mills was decided in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case.
5. As regards the present case, the sanction letter dated 25.11.1988 is on record as Annexure-3 wherein there is a condition No. 5 that the loance/beneficiary is required to execute an undertaking on the prescribed proforma which could be obtained from the Branch for availing this subsidy as loan till the amount is reimbursed by the State/Central Government to the Corporation. Condition No. 5 reads as under:
5. You shall be required to execute an undertaking on prescribed proforma which can be obtained from the Branch/or availing this subsidy as loan till the amount is reimbursed by State/Central Government to the Corporation.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have considered their rival submissions.
6. In the case of Bhartiya Laghu Udyog (supra), a condition similar to that in the present case exists. Although it is not clear from the record as to whether any such undertaking was furnished by the petitioner or not but it is clear that disbursement of the subsidy amount was subject to the aforesaid Condition No. 5. The relevant portion of the decision rendered in the case of Bhartiya Laghu Udyog (supra) reads as under:
In the instant case it is not disputed that the scheme for the grant of subsidy was issued by the Central Government and on 30.9.1988 the same stood revoked finally though on two previous occasions vide communication dated 3.5.1988 Annexure-R2 a letter was sent by the Government of India informing the concerned authorities that the scheme had been extended for a period of six months from 1.4.1988 to 30.9.1988. Thereafter vide communication dated 22.9.1988 Government of India informed all the State Governments and Union Territories that the scheme for the grant of subsidy was being discontinued the aforesaid letter is Annexure-R3 dated 22.9.1988 on record.
A perusal of the para 5 of the letter Annexure-4 which has been quoted above goes to show that even while sanctioning subsidy to the petitioner it was made clear that the petitioner was required to execute an undertaking that the subsidy was being availed as a loan till the amount is disbursed by the State Government/Central Government to the Corporation. It is the case of the respondent Corporation, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that after 30.9.1988 Stale/Central Government did not release any amount to the Corporation and therefore in view of the condition No. 5 in the sanction letter Annexure-4 and the undertaking given by the petitioner in pursuance thereof the amount which has been disbursed by way of subsidy was treated as loan and liable to be recovered from the petitioner.
In view of the above the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing, as it is the case of the respondents as mentioned in para 6 of the reply that at the time of the meeting of the DLC, held on 2.11.1988 they were not aware of the fact that the scheme had not extended beyond 30.9.1988 and it was ignorance of the aforesaid fact that the sanction was issued in favour of the petitioner. Nonetheless in the facts and circumstances of this case where the petitioner has himself given an undertaking in terms of para 5 of the letter (Annexure-4) dated 17.11.1988 as such the petitioner having agreed to treat the amount as a loan if the same was not disbursed to the respondent corporation by the Central/State Government, the amount of subsidy was required to be treated as loan and the petitioner was required to refund the amount to the corporation. The corporation was entitled to ask for a report of the same. Consequently this writ petition stands dismissed.
7. I am of the view that the grant of subsidy was subject to reimbursement and admittedly, the same was not reimbursed on account of fact that the scheme was withdrawn therefore, it is recoverable and further in case any undertaking is on record of R.F.C. then it has to be treated as loan. For the aforesaid reasons, petitioner is not entitled to any relief of quashing of recovery of said amount.
8. The Counsel for petitioner alternatively submits that both parties were not aware of withdrawal of scheme and the Court earlier held the date of application as relevant date for sanction therefore, interest be waived. I leave the issue of charge and recovery of interest open to the respondent R.F.C. In case a representation on interest issue is made by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation shall decide the same within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order along with the representation. It is further made clear that in case of any adverse decision of R.F.C. on interest, the petitioner will be free to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in respect of the interest part.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.