IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 12297 of 2006(L)
1. PROVIDENCE APPAREL EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
4. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY,
5. M/S.HOLY APPARELS EXPORTS (PVT)LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :SRI.SIBY MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :21/08/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NOs. 12297,13576 OF 2006
--------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a private limited Company engaged in the
business of manufacturing garments. In the year 2002-03, the Central
Government formulated a scheme for development of enterprises for
educated women just above the poverty line. An amount of Rs.3
crores have been sanctioned and made over to the State Government
for this purpose. The intention behind the scheme is to set up an
apparel park with common facilities which are to be made use of by
small SSI units engaged in the manufacture of garments. Originally
the Kottayam Municipality agreed to provide land for the setting up of
the apparel park. Later on they withdrew from the offer. In the said
circumstances, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12297/06 came forward to
set up the apparel park with the financial assistance offered as above.
However, among the members of the Company difference of opinion
arose, as a result of which some of the members formed two other
companies. These three companies vied with each other for setting up
of the park and ultimately by Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C)No.12297/06, the
Government formulated the modalities for implementation of the
W.P.(c)No.12297 /06& Con.case 2
Central Government scheme. It appears that on the basis of
Ext.P4, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13576/06 came forward to set
up the park in accordance with Ext.P4, which was allowed by the
Government and the District Industries Centre. Amounts have been
put in the joint account of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13576/07 and
the District Industries Manager for implementation. It is under the
above circumstances, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12297/06 has
filed that writ petition seeking the following reliefs.
i) to issue a writ of certiorari and
quash Exhibit-P4 as illegal and arbitrary;
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus
directing the third respondent to pass
appropriate orders on Exhibit-P3 application;
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus
directing the third respondent to sanction a
cluster development agent to petitioner’s
choice.
iv) to issue such other writ, order or
direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstance of
the case”.
2. The contention in that writ petition is that by handing
over the funds to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13576/06, the
respondents have violated the purpose of the scheme and allowed a
single Company to enjoy the financial assistance given under the
scheme which is intended for the benefit of others also. According to
the petitioner in that writ petition that the same amounts to
violation of the scheme formulated by the Central Government.
W.P.(c)No.12297 /06& Con.case 3
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13576/06, filed that writ
petition in view of the failure on the part of the respondents to
release funds for setting up of the apparel park in accordance with
the project report submitted by them. Therefore, they have sought
the following reliefs in their writ petition.
“a) issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
respondents to disburse the amount sanctioned
as per Exhibit-P5 Government Order,
b) Hold that the delay in disbursing the
amount sanctioned in Exhibit P-5 is arbitrary and
illegal,
c) issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
3rd respondent to act upon Exhibits P-6 and P-7
forthwith and
d) Be further pleased to issue such
other writs, orders and directions as are deemed
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case”.
4. Now it is clear that W.P.(C)No.13576/06 was
necessitated only because of the order of status quo dated 23.5.06
passed in W.P.(C)No.12297/06. As such once W.P.(C)No.12297/06
is decided finally, it may not necessary to go into the contentions in
W.P.(C)No.13576/06 at all.
5. The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13576/06,
who is the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.12297/06 is that there is no
departure from the original scheme at all and in fact the 5th
respondent is setting up an apparel park itself in accordance with a
project report submitted by them in tune with the objects of the
W.P.(c)No.12297 /06& Con.case 4
scheme framed by the Central Government itself. They would
contend that there is absolutely no merit in the contention in W.P.
(C)No.12297/06 in so far as the petitioner therein submitted Ext.P3
application along with project report only on 25.1.06 much after the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13576/06 submitted their project report
which had already been accepted and acted upon by them.
6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The
primary contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12297/06 appears
to be that the amounts sanctioned for the scheme is being siphoned
off, for the benefit of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13576/06 alone,
instead of applying the funds to the common benefit of units
engaged in the manufacture of apparels by providing the common
facilities contrary to the object of the scheme. Of course, the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12297/06 contends that the General Manger
of the District Industries Centre is in collusion with the 5th
respondent and they are together siphoning off the amounts in
question. But the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13576/06 submits that as
is clear from the documents produced the amount is not merely
given to that Company but the amount is deposited in a joint
account with the General Manger of the District Industries Centre
and therefore without his knowledge and his consent no amount can
be spent for the purpose other than for the scheme. This stand is
W.P.(c)No.12297 /06& Con.case 5
fully supported by the counter affidavit filed by the Government in
W.P.(C)No.13576/06. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12297/06 has
not been able to bring on record any material in support of his
contention that the amounts are being siphoned off for the benefit
of private individuals without using the amount for the common
benefit of small scale apparel units as envisaged in the scheme of
the Central Government. The petitioner has not even cared to
produce a copy of the scheme of the Central Government to
substantiate his contentions. He has not impleaded the manager of
the District Industries Centre in his personal capacity to allege and
prove malafides/collusion as alleged by the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.13576/06 points out that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12297/06
had not even any contention to that effect in that writ petition. In
so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12297/06 has not been able to
satisfy me that Ext.P4 order of the Government is vitiated in any
manner, I am not inclined to entertain that writ petition.
Accordingly, W.P.(C)No.12297/06 is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.12297/06, W.P.(C)
No.13576/06 is disposed of directing the respondents to take
appropriate steps to see that the appropriate funds are provided for
implementation of the scheme in accordance with Exts.P5 and P6
W.P.(c)No.12297 /06& Con.case 6
expeditiously, but ensuring that the funds are used strictly for the
purpose of implementation of the scheme for which the funds had
been allotted.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd