IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35570 of 2007(H)
1. BALAKRISHNAN P.V., S/O. LATE APPU,
... Petitioner
2. P.V. BIJU, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN,
Vs
1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE DIRECTOR,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SRINATH GIRISH
For Respondent :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/06/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 35570 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are father and son. According to them, they
have started two different businesses in two separate premises by
availing of two separate loans from a bank. Thereafter they applied
to the 1st respondent for interest subsidies for the two industries as
per a scheme framed by the 1st respondent for the purpose of
payment of interest subsidy to entrepreneurs. Subsequently, on the
ground that the petitioners together are running only one business, a
notice has been issued to the 2nd petitioner by the 1st respondent
informing him that they had received a letter from the Khadi and
Village Industries Commission to recover the margin money of
Rs.3 lakhs paid to the 2nd petitioner. Although both petitioners filed
suit, namely, OS Nos.64/07 and 65/07 before the Sub Court,
Kozhikode against the decree and those suits happened to be
dismissed for non-payment of balance court fees. Subsequently,
Ext.P1 direction has been issued to the bank directing refund of the
margin money received in respect of the petitioners. Petitioners are
WPC : 35570/07
-:2:-
challenging Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 Circular, whereby it is clarified that
more than one project by a single beneficiary under the scheme is
not to be permitted and that payment of subsidy to more than one
person pertaining to a single family also is not permissible.
Petitioners’ contention is that petitioners are separate individuals,
although father and son, conducting separate businesses availing of
separate loans from the bank. The petitioners therefore seek the
following reliefs:
“i. to call for the records leading up to Exhibit P2 and to
quash Exhibits P1 and P2 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari orany other appropriate order or direction.
ii. to stay or suspend the operation of Exts.P1 and P2 by
directing the respondents not to act upon them.
iii. to issue such other writ, order or direction as may be
prayed for and which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under
the circumstances of the case.”
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2,
wherein it is contended that the petitioners suppressed facts and
availed benefits, which they were not eligible for and hence steps
were taken to recover the benefits given to them. According to them,
although the petitioners proposed two units and make it appear as if
there are separate units, availing of margin money for two units, it
WPC : 35570/07
-:3:-
was found out by respondents that the same were not correct.
According to the respondents, petitioners together are running only
one business. Respondents 1 and 2 therefore would contend that
the petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. For
granting relief to the petitioners, I have to enter a finding to the effect
that the petitioners are running two separate businesses. The
petitioners have not produced any documents or evidence in support
of their contentions. As such ascertainment of those facts involve
proving facts on evidence which cannot ordinarily be done in a writ
petition. In fact in respect of the same relief, the petitioners had filed
suits before appropriate civil court, which have been dismissed,
admittedly, for nonpayment of balance court fees. In such
circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary
jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the writ
petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
ttb
WPC : 35570/07
-:4:-