Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31045 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ganesh Shankar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anadi Krishna Narayana
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondents no. 1,2 and 3 and Sri Habib Ahmad for the respondent no. 4.
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 7.6.2019 passed by the Chief Veterinary Officer, respondent no. 3 and has prayed that no coercive measures be taken against him so as to realize the alleged outstanding amount on the loan.
It appears that the petitioner was selected for grant of financial assistance for the Mini Kamdhenu Yojana in the 2013 worth Rs.
120.51 lakhs in respect of which 25% of the margin money to the tune of Rs. 30.13 lakhs was to be invested by the petitioner.
The Allahabad Bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 90.38 lakhs and the same was repayable in 54 monthly installments of Rs. 2.20 lakhs per month. An amount of Rs. 69,61,710/- was released in the first phase for the purchase of 100 cattle. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court contending that he was not paid subsidy as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. It was disposed of on 2.4.2019 with the direction to the Chief Veterinary Officer to consider the grievance of the petitioner with regard to release of the subsidy.
The Chief Veterinary Officer considered the representation of the petitioner after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and rejected the representation by the impugned order dated 7.6.2019.
The impugned order clearly records the finding that the petitioner has not purchased the requisite number of the cattle and he has defaulted in payment of the loan amount. A further finding has been recoded that under the scheme petitioner was entitled to a total subsidy of Rs. 13,65,840/- and the same was released in his favour on various dates as mentioned in the order itself.
The release of the amount on the dates mentioned in the order is not in dispute and can not be disputed as it is factual matter verifiable from the record.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the Chief Veterinary Officer.
Since the petitioner has defaulted in payment of the loan granted by the petitioner, he has been served with notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to repay the outstanding amount within 60 days. In case petitioner is aggrieved by the said notice, he may take recourse to proceeding under Section 17 of the Act.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 SKS