IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37058 of 2007(J)
1. P.M.JAMES, PULLAMPARAMBIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
... Respondent
2. PROJECT OFFICER, DISTRICT KHADI GRAMA
For Petitioner :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP
For Respondent :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 37058 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an entrepreneur who started a house boat and
catering unit. The Khadi and Village Industries Commission evolved
a scheme for payment of margin money for certain rural industrial
projects. Ext.P1 is the scheme for the same, as per which margin
money is available from the Commission in respect of rural industries
not included in the negative list of the Khadi Commission. The Khadi
Board is the implementing agency. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2
project before the 2nd respondent, Project Officer of the Khadi Board.
He, by Ext.P4, recommended the petitioner’s industry for loan to the
Federal Bank with the endorsement therein that the petitioner’s
industry is eligible for margin money from the Khadi Commission.
The Federal Bank sanctioned the loan and the petitioner started the
business. Subsequently by Ext.P5, the petitioner was informed that
for house boat services the margin money scheme is not available.
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5. The contention of the petitioner is
that the petitioner has started the project believing that under the
scheme he is eligible for margin money since the 2nd respondent
WPC : 37058/07
-:2:-
recommended that the petitioner is eligible for margin money. He
therefore contends that the respondents are now estopped from now
contending that the house boat service is not included in the margin
money scheme.
2. The contention of the respondents is that as per the scheme
margin money is available only for those industries not included in
the negative list of the Khadi and Village Industries commission. The
Commission has by Ext.R1(b) Circular declared that rural transport,
except Autorickshaw in Andaman & Nicobar,House-boat, Shikara &
Tourist Boats in Jammu & Kashmir, and cycle rickshaw, is included in
the negative list of village industries and is not to be considered for
financial assistance under the margin money scheme. It is pointed
out in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent that in Ext.R1(c)
agreement between the petitioner and Federal Bank it is specifically
stated that the petitioner would be entitled to the margin money
assistance only after the Khadi and Village Industries Commission
approved the petitioner’s eligibility for margin money. Therefore
there is no question of estoppel since the petitioner was very well
aware that only after the Commission approves the petitioner’s
eligibility he would become entitled to the margin money. In such
WPC : 37058/07
-:3:-
circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that believing the
promise of the 2nd respondent he altered his position to his detriment
so as to set up a case of estoppel. Therefore insofar as the
petitioners industry is included in the negative list of the Commission,
the petitioner is not entitled to the margin money under Ext.P1
scheme is the contention raised by respondents.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. From Ext.P1
it is abundantly clear that, for the purpose of margin money scheme
rural industries included in the negative list of the Commission is
excluded. House boat service is treated as rural transport as is
evident from Ext.R1(b), though house boats used in Jammu and
Kashmir are excluded from the negative list. That being so, as per
Ext.P1 scheme the petitioner is not eligible for the margin money.
Regarding the question of estoppel, it is clear that, Ext.P4 is issued
by the 2nd respondent Project Officer of the Khadi and Village
Industries Board who is only an implementing agency for the Khadi
and Village Industries Commission. The petitioner himself was
aware that, the opinion of the 2nd respondent was not final in the
matter as is evident from Ext.R1(c) agreement between the petitioner
and the bank, which reads thus:
WPC : 37058/07
-:4:-
“I have been sanctioned with a loan of Rs.8,90,000/- (Rupees
Eight lakhs and ninety thousand only) on 19.8.06for which
necessary documents have been executed by me. I shall become
eligible for Margin Money Assistance of Rs.301200/- (Rupees Three
lakhs one thousand and two hundred only) under the above scheme
only after KVIC approves my eligibility for the Margin Money.
Pending approval and admission of the claim by KVIC the Margin
Money subsidy amount may be detained in a Term Deposit Account
with the bank in my name for two years with lein marked for the loan
sanctioned. In case of non-admission/non-approval of the claim by
KVIC, the bank shall be entitled to:
Refund the subsidy in full to KVIC
To convert the sanction into one or the other of its schemes
at its sole discretion without any further reference to me in this
regard.
I further undertake to bind myself and abide by the
decision/action taken by the bank in this regard as aforesaid.”
When the petitioner himself was aware that he would be
eligible for margin money only after Khadi and Village Industries
Commission approves his eligibility for margin money, the petitioner
cannot set up a case of estoppel against the Commission.
Commission is the authority to sanction margin money. Therefore it
cannot be held that on account of the promise by the 2nd respondent,
the petitioner has altered his position to his detriment. For all the
above reasons there is no merit in the contentions raised in the writ
petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
ttb
WPC : 37058/07
-:5:-