IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.45744 OF 2018 (GM - RES) BETWEEN:
M/s. Multitech Agro India (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., Company Incorporated under The Companies Act, Having its RO At No.48/20, Opposite Anjaneya Temple, Taralabalu Badavane, Vidyanagara, Davanagere – 577 004. Represented by its Managing Director, Nagaraj M.J.
… Petitioner (By Sri.Nagaraj M.J., - Party – In - Person) AND:
1. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Co-Operation and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, Room No.120, First Floor, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Government of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Horticulture, M. S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Karnataka State Mission Agency ®, Department of Horticulture, Government of Karnataka, Represented by its Executive Director, Office of Mission Director, Lalbagh, Bengaluru – 560 004.
4. Deputy Director of Horticulture (Zilla Panchayath), SH 76, Vinobha Nagar, Davanagere – 577 001.
5. Senior Assistant Director, Office of Senior Assistant Direct of Horticulture (Zilla Panchayath), SH 76, Vinobha Nagar, Davanagere – 577 001.
… Respondents (By Sri. Madanan Pillai R., Advocate for R1; Sri. Y. D. Harsha, AGA for R2 to R5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order/communication dated 07.07.2018 vide Annexure – G and the order/communication dated 24.07.2018 vide Annexure – J issued by R-5 and etc., This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Nagaraj M.J., Petitioner – Party-in-Person.
Sri. Madanan Pillai R., learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri. Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the petitioner- party-in-person and learned counsel for the respondents, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of communication dated 07.07.2018 as well as communication dated 24.07.2018.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 to carry on the business in manufacturing of all types of Agri inputs like fertilizers, micronutrients, pesticides, insecticides and other allied activities. The petitioner- Company moves its unit in the industrial estate established by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board at Davangere. The petitioner- Company has obtained a loan from Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank to the tune of `40 Lakhs for the purpose of manufacturing of Bio-Pesticides. The petitioner-company applied for grant of subsidy in the scheme floated by respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the subsidy to a tune of `30 Lakhs under the aforesaid scheme. It is averred in the writ petition that respondent No.5 recommended the case of the petitioner to respondent No.4. After inspecting the industrial shed of the petitioner, respondent No.4 in turn made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner to respondent No.3 to sanction the subsidy. However, a communication dated 07.07.2018 was sent by Senior Assistant Director to Deputy Director of Horticulture in which it was stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the amount of subsidy as he has not commenced production. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the petitioner - party-in-person submitted that commencement of production is not a condition precedent for granting of subsidy under the scheme and the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the registration certificate issued by the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee before the competent authority and the competent authority be directed to release the subsidy in favour of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in case the petitioner produces registration certificate issued by the aforesaid authority, suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner produces the registration certificate issued by the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee before the competent authority, the competent authority shall take a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for issuance of cheque to which according to the petitioner is eligible under the scheme within a period of three weeks from the date of production of such certificate.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-