IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19451 of 2004 Between: 1 Ch.Rajendra Prasad, S/o Ram Mohan Rao, R/o DNo.6-4-28, T.Nagar, Rajahmundry. 2 Ch.Kamala Devi, W/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o D.No.6-4-28, T.nagar, Rajahmundry 3 S.Deepa Devi, W/o Ramesh, R/o D.No.6-4-27/2, Nagara, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 4 K.Bindu Madhuri, W/o Kalyana Chakravarthi, R/o 2nd Floor, Saikiran Apats., Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad 5 K.Nanda Kishore, S/o Prakash Rao, R/o D.No.8-3-694, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad 6 P.N.V.Ramana, S/o Narayana Swamy, R/o By-Pass Road, Rajahmundry 7 S.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Chinnaveera Reddy, R/o D.No.7-226, Anaparthi, East Godavari District 8 S.Sashikala, W/o Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o D.No.7-226, Anaparthi, East Godavari District 9 S.Sailaja, D/o Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o DNo.7-226, Anaparthi, East Godavari District 10 M.Sridevi, W/o Venkata Reddy, R/o Amalapuram, East Godavari District (All the above petitioners are rep.by their G.P.A.Holder Sri Koganti Sambasiva Rao, S/o K.Ramaiah, aged 48 years, R/o Vishnu Classic, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of India Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi rep.by its Secretary 2 National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Investment Credit Department) 3rd Floor, A & B Wing, C24, G.Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai -51 rep.by its Chief General Manager 3 National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Regional Office - Andhra Pradesh 1-1-61, RTC Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 rep.by its Deputy General Manager 4 Indian Overseas Branch, Ring Road Branch Vijayawada, rep.by its Branch Manager 5 The Directorate of Marketing & Inspection, 2nd Floor, Block 1, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad rep.by its Senior Marketing Manager .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, declaring the action of the second and third respondents to exclude the cost towards facilities like boundary wall, internal roads, drainage system, weigh bridge, oﬃce buildings etc., from the outlay for calculating the subsidy amounts for the godowns of the petitioners and also limiting the subsidy to the estimated cost in exclusion of the actual cost or the prescribed cost under the scheme and to recover the subsidy amounts paid to the petitioners for the same, as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice, doctrine of legitimate expectation and Article 14, 300 A of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19451 of 2004 ORDER: Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Solicitor General submit that the question raised in this writ petition as to whether the petitioners who constructed rural godowns under the “Gramin Bhandaran Yojana” are entitled for investment subsidy on the entire cost of project or they are entitled to the subsidy on the actual cost of construction of godown, is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in P.Nagendra Prasad v The Government of India (W.P.No.17752 of 2004 and batch, dated 24.09.2008). In the above judgment this Court held as under. …To say in other words, even though a promoter avails loan from a commercial bank or other ﬁnancial institutions, for the purpose of construction of godown, internal roads and such other amenities and allied facilities, criteria for subsidy is only actual cost incurred for construction of godown … If clauses 3(f) and 4(A) of the scheme are interpreted as suggested by the petitioners, para 3(j) of the scheme which provides that the scheme shall be implemented with approved outlay of 334.34 crores will have to be given a go bye. The petitioners applied as per the operational guidelines of the scheme and so as to be eligible they have to construct godowns in conformity with technical and ﬁnancial parameters. It must be, therefore, held that operational guidelines dated 27.03.2002 for the year 2001-2002 & 2002-2003 do not contemplate or provide for subsidy on construction of allied facilities/amenities. Subsidy is provided only on the actual capital cost incurred for construction of the godown. Following the above, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to submit their memoranda of calculations keeping in view the principle that under 2001 to 2003 scheme, the subsidy will be payable only on the actual cost of godown excluding for providing allied facilities/amenities. As and when such memoranda are submitted by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order the commercial bank concerned shall calculate/assess the excess subsidy, if any paid, and take action accordingly. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.11.2008 vs To 1 The Secretary, Government of India Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Chief General Manager, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Investment Credit Department) 3rd Floor, A & B Wing, C24, G.Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai -51 3 The Deputy General Manager, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Regional Office - Andhra Pradesh 1-1-61, RTC Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 4 The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Branch, Ring Road Branch Vijayawada. 5 The Senior Marketing Manager, Directorate of Marketing & Inspection, 2nd Floor, Block 1, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. 6 2CCs to 7 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSR}