Petitioner was the proprietor of a concern namely M/s.Beam Electronics and Controls, which was a small scale industrial unit. First respondent sanctioned a margin money loan to the petitioner in the midst of the establishment of the SSI unit to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- as early as on 25.3.1998. During 2000, evident from Ext.P1, a sum of Rs.1,00,625/- was sanctioned to the petitioner as subsidy. However, the second respondent did not pay the subsidy to the petitioner nor the same was adjusted against the margin money loan. According to the petitioner, the subsidy amount was adjusted in three different spells i.e., 24.9.2002, 8.3.2004 and 20.4.2006. Even after adjustment of the subsidy, an amount Rs.2,33,166/- is remaining due from the petitioner against the margin money loan, for which revenue recovery action is initiated. According to the petitioner, petitioner is not responsible for the dues consequent to the lapses on the part of the second respondent. It is thus seeking appropriate direction, this writ W.P.(C) No.31272 of 2016 2 petition is filed.
2. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised in the writ petition.
3. However, from the counter affidavit I realise that the contention advanced by the petitioner in respect of the adjustment of the subsidy is an admitted fact. It is stated in the counter affidavit that, even though notices were issued to the petitioner by registered post on 17.11.2003, 15.3.2005 and 17.1.2013, there was no response. It is further submitted that, one time settlement scheme was available and settlement notices were issued to the petitioner on 20.5.2013 and 25.2.2016. According to the first respondent, there was not interest shown by the petitioner in order to settle the loan transaction, which necessitated the respondents to proceed to recover the amount by resorting to coercive action as provided under the KRR Act.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
W.P.(C) No.31272 of 2016 3
5. When the writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court, the recovery proceedings was stayed on condition that, petitioner remits an amount of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. I am informed that, the said amount is paid by the petitioner. The interim order granted by this Court is still in force. Since Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner is pending consideration before the first respondent I think it is only appropriate that the first respondent is directed to take a decision in accordance with the regulations in force with respect to the payment of subsidy and adjustment of the same and arrive at a finding, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time the interim granted by this Court and which is in force, even now, will be operative.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE dlk/6/12/