IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18644 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.M.NAJEEB, S/O.MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER, PEOPLE'S TYRE RETREADING, KADAKKAL, RESIDING AT SHAFEEK MANZIL, PALLIMUKKU, KUMMIL VILLAGE, KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,DISTRICT OFFICE, Y.M.C.A.ROAD, KOLLAM. 4. THE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE DIRECTOR, KHADI COMMISSION, OPP.AYURVEDA COLLEGE, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE PROJECT OFFICER, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. WP(C).No. 18644 of 2008 -2- ADV. SRI.A.A.ABDUL HASSAN, SC FOR KFC FOR R3 SRI.K.KESAVAN KUTTY,SC,KVIC FOR R4 SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD FOR R4 & 6 GP SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18644 of 2008 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KFC/KLM/1002951/8393/2004 DATED 16.9.04 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.K1/77/2002/MMS DATED 9.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 27.6.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.R04/2951/1017/2006 DATED 29.8.06 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE SIXTH RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.K1/77/2002/MARGIN MONEY DATED 23.9.06 RESPONDENT DATED 23.9.06 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.K-12/7053/2006 DATED 19.12.06 ISSUED BYTHE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P7- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KFC/KLM/LEGAL/2007/2006 DATED 21.12.06 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P8- THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).16149/2006 DATED 1.8.2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT (True Copy) P.A. To Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).18644/2008 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner started a Tyre Retreading Unit availing a loan from the respondents 1 to 3, as per the Scheme notified by the fourth respondent. The petitioner was entitled, under the particular Scheme (Margin money Scheme) notified by the fourth respondent, to have the benefit of 'margin money' to an extent of 30% of the total loan amount, which was to be provided through the implementing agency who are shown as the fifth and the sixth respondents herein. The petitioner after completing all the formalities, filed necessary proceedings for obtaining the said amount and the credentials were substantiated before the KFC for taking steps. It was accordingly, that Ext.P1 communication was issued on 16.9.2004 to the sixth respondent pointing out the factual particulars of the loan provided and also requesting to sanction eligible 'margin money' to the Unit. 2. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 communication dated 9.5.2006 of the sixth respondent, asking to W.P.(C).18644/2008 2 furnish a declaration about the date of commencement of production, which was satisfied, by submitting Ext.P3 dated 27.6.2006 pointing out that the Unit was started on 19.8.2004. KFC issued Ext.P4 letter dated 29.8.2006 to the sixth respondent giving further facts and figures and to grant the 'margin money' if any, to the above Unit, specifically pointing out that the loan might be disbursed through the KFC. 3. In the meanwhile, because of adverse circumstances, petitioner was compelled to close the loan amount with the KFC and on satisfying the entire outstanding liability, Ext.P7 communication was issued by the KFC on 21.12.2006 to the concerned revenue authorities pointing out that they were having no charge/lien over the property in question. It was thereafter, that the petitioner chose to approach this Court in the year 2008 by filing the present writ petition seeking for a direction to be given to respondents 5 and 6 to disburse the entire amount due to the petitioner towards the 'margin money' for the loan availed from the KFC under the 'Margin Money Scheme' within a time frame, also seeking for some other incidental reliefs as well. W.P.(C).18644/2008 3 4. The fourth respondent Commission, has filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out the salient features of the Scheme and also the sequence of events, as narrated in paragraph 5 to 11. According to the fourth respondent, they conducted a joint inspection on 25.6.2003, when it was revealed that the petitioner's Unit was not functioning and as such, it was observed that the petitioner was not entitled to have the benefit of 'margin money'. It is also pointed out that the Scheme was put an end to in the year 2006 and as such, petitioner is not entitled to have any positive relief as sought for. 5. The fifth respondent has filed a separate statement wherein the details of factual position, have been given with reference to the specific dates in paragraph 3 as given below. (i). Date of application for loan - 9.1.2002 (ii). The date in which the Project Officer, Kollam recommend - 22.3.2002 (iii). The date of sanctioning of loan by KFC - 3.12.2002 (iv). The date of releasing of 1st installment of loan - 23.9.2002 (v). The date in which the Board received margin money claim - 10.1.2003 (vi). The date of obtaining power W.P.(C).18644/2008 4 connection - 10.8.2004 (vii). The date of starting function of the Unit - 19.8.2004 6. It is stated that the physical verification report, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Ext.R1(a), clearly reveals the factual position as on date to the effect that the petitioner's Unit was not functioning. This being the position, it is pointed out that no benefit could be extended to the petitioner in view of the specific terms of the Scheme formulated by the fourth respondent/Commission. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, when the matter came up for consideration on 18.8.2009, referring to the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, an order was passed to confirm as to whether the petitioner had started the Unit between 25.6.2003 and 25.6.2006, ie, during the period of operation of the Scheme and to appreciate whether the petitioner was eligible for the 'margin money'. In view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner's industry was commenced on 19.8.2004 as contended by the petitioner in the writ petition with reference to Ext.P3, it is W.P.(C).18644/2008 5 argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to have the 'margin money' and respondents are liable to be compelled in this regard. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit that the idea in understanding the petitioner is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. It is stated that the very purpose of the Scheme was to create employment opportunities in the rural area and that the benefit was being extended, subject to satisfaction of certain norms. In the case of the petitioner, admittedly Unit was not functioning on the date of inspection, ie, on 25.6.2003 which, in fact, commenced the operation even according to the petitioner, only on 19.8.2004 as shown in Ext.P3. It is also pointed out that, admittedly the loan account with the KFC was already closed and as such, there cannot be any disbursement of the 'margin money' to the petitioner directly, as the Scheme itself contemplates disbursement of the due amount only through the Bank or the financial institution concerned, against the loan account. W.P.(C).18644/2008 6 9. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the Scheme of the fourth respondent/Commission which was being implemented by the fifth respondent, is very specific, with intent to see that the money does not reach the hands of the undeserving persons, as the purpose of the Scheme itself is to generate more employment opportunities in the rural areas. It is stated that, once the eligibility of the person concerned is declared and satisfied, the eligible extent of the 'margin money' (30% of the total loan amount) will be made available to the concerned Bank/financial institution, where the said amount will be retained in a separate joint account in the name of the Project Officer and that of the financier, for a period of 'two years'. Only after verification and satisfaction that the beneficiary is functioning, meeting the commitment for the entire period of 'two years' the amount kept in the joint account will be ordered to be released to be set off against the loan account, which is stated as in the form of a 'grant' and not as an undue advantage. Admittedly, since the petitioner has closed down the Unit, also closing the loan account, there cannot be any direction to disburse the said amount to the petitioner, submits the learned counsel. W.P.(C).18644/2008 7 10. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the purpose of the Scheme and the manner of disbursement of the 'margin money' have been well explained by respondents 4 and 5 through the pleadings filed before this Court. It is also not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has already closed the loan account with the KFC and the title deeds have been got released, in the light of clearance by the KFC as borne by Ext.P7. It is further discernible from Ext.P4 letter dated 29.8.2006 issued by the KFC that a request was made to the fifth respondent to disburse the margin money, if any, 'through KFC'. Admittedly, the petitioner did not prove the credentials nor did seek any direction by filing the proceedings before this Court to prove the eligibility and to have the due amount, if any, to be disbursed through KFC and to have the loan account closed accordingly. The petitioner arranged the necessary funds and closed the loan account and it was thereafter that the writ petition was filed after two years, for causing the 'margin money' to be disbursed. This Court finds that the 'margin money', as per the relevant provisions of the Scheme, is not a matter of right, but as a measure of support, to be extended to W.P.(C).18644/2008 8 the beneficiary who meets the obligations under the Scheme and that too, through the concerned Bank/financial institutions. This being the position, besides the fact that the issue had already become stale when the writ petition was filed in the year 2008, there is no merit in the contentions as well. No interference is warranted and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs