IN THE._eHIGH,._CQU,RT.,OFJCARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 161*: day of September, 1' .
Wu': Pgtition No. 26919":-f;2o_o.5 [Q.l!F~RES) 1
In wnto. 13905 .,
B H _ _
sv ED JALAzLaKziAK:'; SI-{AIV-I9 M-Qt.'¥L_A_
SHAR-E-AM £;:z«1A.a1 Ami) VILLAGE
:NDuSI*R1Es'Asé3oc1A1_10N = ' »
NAND1'{;AHALeIALL1 >903? A
C.HINTANEANI_TALU~K
K{1}LA--R I:>1s'rRji.t:fr
REP. BY ITS 'SECRETARY
SR1. '2::_.MRoc-D PASHA; PETITIONER
[By s_f£.'t3.1§'. Lakehmipathy Raddy, Adm]
'1" c3:):\z.§;§<'$ar.s%£f1g¢'r or mum
'-.SECR'E--'I'ARY TO DEPT. or
' AGED RURAL INDUSTRIES,
NO. 263$, UDI-IYOGA BI-IAVAN,
NEW'. DELHI.
~ 2}: 'T «.TI~iE CHAIRMAN
,aKHADI GRAMODYOG
V' NO.3, IRLA ROAD
VILE PARLAY WEST
MUMBAI-400 O56
2
3 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KI-IADI GRAMODYOG
NO.3 IRLA ROAD, VILE
PARLAY WEST
MUMBAI-400 056
4 THE DIRECTOR K P M
KHADI GRAMODYOG
NO.3 IRLA ROAD, VILE
PARLAY WEST
MUMBAI-400 056
5 THE STATE DIRECTOR , -. «.
K1-LAD: AND VILLAGE 1NDu$I'Ri S.COMMiS3i£}N ;
N0.6.DR.DVGROAD " . u "
BASAVANAGUDI ., "
BANGALORE»560004
6 THEJOINT mREcro1%=;_ ._ V
COMMERCE ANI) IND1IS'f'l'é:E;S' _ _
KOLAR DISTRiC'i' "
KOLAR. _ RESPONBENTS
TV " a .['.By ShE3.VA. Padnmrabhan. CGC for R1;
_ . ' $ri;VR.'P, Saniaahckaraiah and
B, Na"mahnha,. lvmxthy, Adv-3. for R2 to R4;
' Sim. Sorcjirxi Mutharma. K., AGA for R5-R6]
T313 931111919'. zs«._Fii;E9 UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND 227 0?
THE.;'COi%iS'I1'IIf?!ON OF' mum, PRAYENG TO cw. FOR THE
.._Emf1RE;RE<:_oRDs' 'mom THE FILE 0? THE Sm RESPONDENT
‘PER’i’A1N’1N€3 ’30 THE GRANT OF LOAN TO THE PE’m*1oNER’s
‘AssocL~mo_m_uNDER T}-IE sussmv SCHEME AND ETCL,
‘2n tér&§;”§§91:§”§:2ws gm:-nu;
.. , _ smb JALAL mm SHAH MOULA
ESHAR-E-ALI Ki-[ADI AND VILLAGE
V’ — ..*INDUSI’REES ASSOCIATION
NIMMAKAYALAHALLI VILLAGE.
NANDIGANAHALLI POST
CHINTAMANI TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
REP. 83′ ITS SECRETARY
SR1. zamaooa PASHA ”
{By sn. 0.12. Lakshmipathy Raddy, 316.-§
1 GOVERNM ENT OF’ INDIA
SECRETARY TO DEFY. OFT’
AGRO RURAL INDUS’I’RIES;, ”
NO. 265A, UDHYOGA BHAVAN_,”»
NEW DELHI.
2 THE CHAIRMAN _ .
KHADI GRAMODYOG .
NO.3,IRLA ROAD ‘
VILE PARIAY was?’ ‘ _ –
MuMBm+_4oc:;;n’56 ~_
3 THE CHIEF’ ‘£1XE<3?LFTi'+!I=3, 0F'FfECE.R
§<HApIc3RA§s~:;)DYQGV ~
No.3T'1R1,a;,R0A,:i)', VILE
PARLAY .
M’Lr_MBA1a4oo~G56_ ”
4 THE [}!.REC’I’C:!i’ K. P 34:
_ KHADI Gs§Ars;0DYoG’
.. N013 IRLA ROAD, VILE
‘I ._ .. ….. ..’
v. 3 MUMBAi-._-300 055
5 [ THE’–~srA{m–”D:REcToR
‘ . xmbij-AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION
NO;t3,. DRDVG ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE~56O 004 RESPONDENTS
[By Sri. RP. Somashckaraiah and
Sri. Sampath Anand Shetty, Adv. for R5]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
” W”l’ l-IE CONS’I’I’!U’}’ION OF’ mam, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LE’I”I’ER
4
1:31′. 11.3.2005 BEARING NO. ISSUED BY THE R5 THE ANNEXURE. –
T AND E’I’C..
THESE PE’I’l’I’¥ONS ms comma or: FOR PREmisi.i€A§*;
HEARING. ‘B’ GROUP, was DAY. THE comm’ .w1:xn1;;_.___T1«:_E
FOLLOWING: _ l-
Writ petitioner claims
which waé keen on
with a fond hope of gettixig under a
scheme iaimvxi of bank finance
version petitioner had borrowed
certiam for running an industry for
” village pmducts and had sought
Afar of this scheme.
2. The griavanoe of the petitioner is that
W thé director of khagii and village’ industries
had recommended the case of the pet1tio’ ncr
of the communication dated 1-12-1998
5
addressed to the director, khadi and village industries
eom1:aission,_Mumbai, recommending that the petitieiaer
may be extended the _benefit__un<_ier the
director of district industries eent:fe,HVIf{e}ar',* " 'V
discordant note by apprising bf it
communication dated 18-} "
the writ pefition] that _:_1ot.entit_1ed3 for any
fmancial subsidy for already more
than six years $i£:t;e__ the ifiiizlctioning. It
is for the present writ
3. Stibmiseioii elf-._Sfi_ Lakshmipathy Reddy, learned
” the petitiener is that when the petitioner had
for claiming the benefit under the
by the khadi and village industries
– -.«.4_c::)}:amiss.ie1:1, a uniform scheme throughout the eounay,
‘ director of this eommission having opined that
. tipetitrioner is entitled for -such benefit, the joint director
V
7
are not normally determined in writ jurisdiction, but
jurisdiction is meant for conserving or
existing rights, the petitioner has, K
rights or statutory rights. Neither at
present case no need to examilie -.iAs;~:q.A.1es L»
petitioner in writ jurisdiction as V
sought for is declined, is 1. to
workont its rightsend accordance
with law. Writ so
5. In the petitioner has sought for
a like relief, case, but the difference being
“for of:a.w1itAofm-andamus to dixect the respondents
to ‘gee of the promised loan amount which
is 31.00 lakh minus R 7.16, as the m.1t1a}’ ”
of Rs 7.16 Iakh has already been released
petitioner has utilized it for the purpose of
h H ing the industry etc.
s/
8
6. I have heard Sn’. G R Lakshmipathy Roddy, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Somashekaraiafmié’
counsel for the respondent-khadi and K
and Sri Paclmanabha, leamed
first respondent
7. While an agreaemorfiz 5- in one
which cannot be before a civil
court, in a matfiefiof there are
several ‘thoWrespondent~board
is of the has notlavailed of the
facility frame and in the manner
provided fo1:,L’*–:jeith’er Aa, v’v:r’it of mandamus nor a writ of
” be However, it is open to the
:.’W:’or1§out its rights and remedies in a civil
other forum. Without prejudice to th1s’
J p0ssibflityu,_”:l1is writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge