IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32030 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V.O.MATHACHAN ALIAS MATHEW, PROPRIETOR, GRACE COCONUT PRODUCTS, VELLIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VETTIMOODU,THIRUMARADY, KAKKOOR PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.N.K.KARNIS SRI.BOBBY MATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 001. 2. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN- 682 030. 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, PIRAVOM, PIN - 686 664. 4. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 5. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN 682 018. 6. MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KAKKOOR BRANCH, KAKKOOR PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 673 619. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE, GOVT.PLEADER R4 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.SATHISH NINAN AND SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 32030 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT. P1 - COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR REGISTRATION OF THE INDUSTRY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE SMALL SCALE INDUSTRY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, ERNAKULAM DATED 17/2/2011 EXT. P2 - COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 10/2/2010 EXT. P3 - COPY OF THE STATE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR 2010-2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXT. P3(A) - COPY OF THE SCHEME FOR 2011-2012 ISSUEE BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXT. P4 - COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/3/2011 EXT. P5 - COPY OF THE TWO OPENING PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXT. P5(A) - COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK. EXT. P6 - COPY OF THE CODE OF BANKERS COMMITMENT TO MOCRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES EXT. P7 - COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 13/1/2011 EXT. P8 - COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 24/5/2011 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P9 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 17/9/2011 EXT.P10 - COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/9/2011 EXT. P11 - COPY OF THE INTIMATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/9/2011 EXT. P12 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/10/2011 --3-- DG --3-- WP(C).No. 32030 of 2011(C) EXT. P13 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 4/11/2011 EXT. P14 - COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 9/9/2009 OF SYNDICATE BANK. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32030 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is mainly regarding the alleged refusal on the part of respondents 2 and 3 for disbursing the eligible subsidy amount due under Ext.P3, a certificate issued by the Director of Agriculture dated 14.10.10. Petitioner submits that he has established a macro enterprises eligible for the subsidy in terms of Ext.P3. It is his case that he has established the unit and that the unit has started functioning. 2. According to him, towards the project cost, he has invested from his own resources and that since the unit has already started functioning he is entitled to be disbursed the subsidy amount. However, relying on the provisions in Ext.P3, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that even the petitioner has not executed MOU and that the petitioner has not got the loans sanctioned by W.P.(C) No. 32030 OF 2011 :2 : the Bank. 3. I have considered the rival contentions. In Ext.P3 it is stated that the subsidy amount will be limited to 50% of the project cost, subject to a maximum subsidy of Rs.10 lakhs and that the balance amount has to be mobilized from the financial institutions/own funds. Therefore if a person has established a unit using his own fund, and without availing of any loan from any financial institutions, in such a case also, if he is otherwise eligible, he should be entitled to get subsidy amount disbursed. Therefore the fact that the petitioner has not availed of any financial assistance from the commercial bank by itself may not dis-entitle the petitioner for the subsidy amount if he is otherwise eligible for the same. 4. As already stated it is the case of the petitioner that he has already established the unit and that the unit is functioning. If that be so, once the petitioner executes MOU as provided in Ext.P3, prima facie there is no reason why he should be deprived of the benefit of subsidy. In that view of the matter I direct that the unit in W.P.(C) No. 32030 OF 2011 :3 : question will be inspected by a Committee as contemplated by Ext.P3, referred to above and Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent. On such inspection if the assertion of the petitioner that he has satisfied the conditions in Exts.P3 and P4, are found to be correct, then the petitioner's claim for disbursement of the subsidy will be duly considered and orders thereon will be passed provided the petitioner satisfies the other conditions laid down for the said purpose. This process should be completed within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 and 3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge