Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23139 of 2021 Petitioner :- Narayan Das Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mangla Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
At present, recovery of Rs. 4,70,750/- is being made from the petitioner. Earlier, vide communication dated (illegible), the petitioner had been sanctioned Rs. 3,50,000/- under the Jaineshwar Mishr (Anya) Yogana of the State Government. Thereby, the State Government subsidized the investment to be made by the petitioner to establish a power-loom. The State Government had sanctioned subsidy of Rs. 3,50,000/- against the petitioner's investment of Rs. 1,10,000/-
Undisputedly, the subsidy amount came to be released to the petitioner. In such factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, merely because a condition was appended with the communication dated 01.11.2018 issued by the Deputy Director Industries/Assistant Commissioner Handlooms requiring the Regional Inspector/Textile Inspector to submit a report as to the utilization of Rs. 45,000/- released to the petitioner, by way of first installment of the subsidy, the respondents have now initiated the recovery proceedings against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that certain departmental proceeding is also pending against Government Officials. Thus, the petitioner claims innocence and resists the recovery.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that in absence of completion certificate having been submitted by the petitioner, there is no presumption that the petitioner had utilized the subsidy amount, in accordance with law. In absence of such certificate, a presumption exists that the Government money has been misappropriated, contrary to the purpose for which it had been released.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in absence of any completion certificate having been submitted by the petitioner to the respondent-authority and in absence of any clear evidence being brought before us to establish that the petitioner had utilized the amount of subsidy released to him for the purpose of setting up a power- loom, we do not find any good ground to offer any interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The conduct of the Regional Inspector/Textile Inspector and other Government-Authorities is of no concern insofar as the recovery is being sought against the petitioner, inasmuch as undisputedly the amount of subsidy was released to the petitioner and not to those authorities.
Writ petition lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 Saurabh