Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
We have heard Shri Pramod K Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.5, Shri Rajiv Sharma for respondent no.2 Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Dr. A.K. Tripathi appears for the U.P. Pollution Control Board.
The petitioner took a loan from the Union Bank of India for the purpose of setting up a brick kiln. The petitioner also applied for a subsidy from the Khadi and Village Industry Commission under the scheme known as Rural Employment Generation Programme, Gram Rozgar Samooh Yojna which was to be operated through public sector and regional rural banks. The objective under the scheme was to provide new avenues of employment in rural sector and to develop entrepreneurship in rural unemployed youths. Under the scheme 25% project cost for the project upto 10 lakhs would be provided as margin money. This margin money would be released in favour of the loanee and would be kept in a term deposit for two years and thereafter would be given to the borrower. The scheme also indicated that the margin money would be available only for a new project.
In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner requested to the Khadi and Village Industry Commission for release of the margin money, but the same was not released and, on the other hand, it is alleged that the recovery proceedings were started by the bank. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.49459 of 2005, which was disposed of by an order dated 18th July, 2005 directing the petitioner to make a representation before the Khadi and Village Industry Commission which would decide the matter with regard to the release of the margin money. According to the petitioner, nothing was done and the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.38289 of 2011, which was again disposed of directing the Commission to decide the representation of the petitioner. It is alleged that pursuant to the said order, the Commission decided the representation rejecting the loan of the petitioner on the ground that though new unit was set up by the petitioner, he was running an old industry and, therefore, not entitled to margin money under the scheme. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present writ petition.
In the counter affidavit, the Commission contends that pursuant to the first Writ Petition No.49459 of 2005 filed by the petitioner, the Commission considered the representation and rejected the same vide its order dated 15.9.2005 and 20.9.2005 which has not been questioned. The petitioner having concealed this fact filed a second writ petition after six years and again obtained interim order to decide his representation.
The respondents contend that the petitioner has not set up any new unit and is running his old unit which is clear from the certificate of Pollution Control Board which is in the name of his son and that the petitioner has filed application for transfer of the said certificate in its own name before the Pollution Control Board.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a certificate issued by the bank indicating that the petitioner has set up a new unit. We have perused the certificate which are Annexure-8 to the writ petition and Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. This certificate indicates that the bank has sanctioned a loan for establishing a new unit. Nothing has been brought to the Court indicating that the petitioner has established a new unit. On the other hand, the application for transfer of pollution certificate, prima facie, indicates the existence of an earlier unit.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that disputed questions of fact have been raised in the present writ petition, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, no relief can be granted.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.3.2014 sc (Rajan Roy, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.)