IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 45026 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. SAMURAI EXPORTS NO.1/27, MARGADA COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS PIPELINE MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 026. REPRESENTED BY IT’S PROPRIETOR MR.JAYAPRAKASH B.V (BY SRI.K.G.KAMATH, ADV.) AND:
… PETITIONER 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER(SSI) NIRMAN BHAVAN NEW DELHI – 110 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (SSI) 2. THE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA ‘SIDBI TOWER’, 15, ASHOK MARG LUCKNOW 226001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER GOVERNMENT SCHEME CELL AND ALSO AT KHANIJA BHAVAN, EAST WING 5TH FLOOR , 49 RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE CORPORATION BANK NO.6, APPA REDDY COMPLEX 5TH CROSS, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 026.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.D.NAGARAJ, ADV. R-1 SRI.PRASHANTH.N.HEGDE, ADV. FOR R-2 SRI.V.B.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 17.08.2011 (ANNX-C) OF THE PETITIONER AND GRANT SUBSIDY TO THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE CREDIT LINKED CAPITAL SUBSIDY SCHEME (ANNEX-B) ISSUED BY THE R-1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.K.G.Kamath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.H.D.Nagaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri.Prashanth N. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Sri.V.B.Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the application dated 17.08.2011 at Annexure-C submitted by the petitioner.
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application of the petitioner be considered by respondent No.2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law, if not already decided.
3. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, if not already decided, by a speaking order within a period of four months from today. Ordered accordingly.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-