IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 5859 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAHEEM MOHAMED, S/O.MOHAMED, AGED 30 YEARS, THERUVIL HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA NORTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KADEEJA MOHAMED, THERUVIL HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA NORTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION, DIRECTORATE OF MARKETING AND INSPECTION, HEAD OFFICE, NHIV, FARIDABAD. 2. DIRECTORATE OF MARKETING AND INSPECTION REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MARKETING OFFICER, EAST THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM-1. 3. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NABARD), REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, PLOT NO. C-24, G-BLOCK, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051. 4. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NABARD), KERALA REGIONAL OFFICE REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-39. 5. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, VELLANGALLORE BRANCH, VELLANGALLORE POST, THRISSUR-680 662. WPC NO.5859/2009 6. CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, KONATHUKUNNU BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R5 SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON FOR R6 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC FOR R1 SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R3-4 SRI.LEO GEORGE FOR R3-4 SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR FOR R3-4 SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR FOR R3-4 SMT.SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R3-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.5859/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 30/01/2008 ISSUED BY R1. P2 : COPY OF JOINT INSPECTION REPORT DATED 27/03/2008 WITH REGARD TO 1ST PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF JOINT INSPECTION REPORT DATED 27/03/2008 WITH REGARD TO 2ND PETITIONER. P3(a) : COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SING BOARD ON THE MACHINES OF THE PETITIONERS. P3(b) : COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SIGN BOARD ON THE MACHINES OF THE PETITIONERS. P4 : COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R4 TO R5 BANK DATED 21/07/2008. P5 : COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R4 TO R6 BANK DATED 22/07/2008. P6 : COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OF R4 OFFICE TO R5 BANK DATED 09/01/2009. P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF KERALA DATED 22/01/2009. P8 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF KERALA DATED 22/01/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF INDIA BEARING NO.M-16011/1/2002-MII DATED 18/02/2005. R1(b) : COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14/11/2006. R1(c) : COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING (RELEVANT PORTION) DATED 14/12/2007. R1(d) : COPY OF LETTER / ORDER NO.M-11011/117/PPCH/2008-MI DATED 30/1/2008 OF HEAD OFFICE, DIRECTORATE OF MARKETING & INSPECTION, FARIDABAD. R1(e) : COPY OF SANCTION ORDER DATED 28/09/2007, OF THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, VELLANGALLORE. R1(f) : COPY OF SANCTION ORDER DATED 29/01/2007 OF CANARA BANK, TRICHUR. WPC NO.5859/2009 R1(g) : COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINE AT PARA 8(vii). R3(a) : COPY OF OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES OF THE SCHEME ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AS MODIFIED ON 26/6/2008. R3(b) : COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN CONENCTION WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF the REGIONAL COMMITTEE DATED 15/02/2007. R3(c) : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.212 DATED 15/12/2006 COMMUNICATED BY NABARD. R3(d) : COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO NABAD DATED 30/01/2008. R3(e) : COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE HEAD OFFICE OF NABARD TO THE REGIONAL OFFICES OF NABAD DATED 14/07/2008. R3(f) : COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE HEAD OFFICE OF NABARD TO THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF NABARD AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31/12/2008. R3(g) : COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF MARKETING AND INSPECTION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 03/12/2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.5859 of 2009-B -------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of September, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioners are two farmers, who have approached this Court praying for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 not to recall the benefit of Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme sanctioned in their favour as per Exts.P4 & P5. 2. By Ext.R1(a) order issued by the Government of India, a Subsidy Scheme for the Development/Strengthening of Agriculture Marketing Infrastructure, Grading and Standardisation was introduced. Ext.R1(g) is the operational guidelines, which include a provision enabling the Government to modify or even withdraw the Scheme. As per the provisions of Ext.R1(a) Scheme and Ext.R1(g) guidelines issued therein, those who are eligible for the benefit were entitled to get 25% of the investment as subsidy. 3. It would appear that when the Scheme was in force, the petitioners made applications for acquiring Combine Harvesters, the cost of which was around Rs.18.5 lakhs. It is stated that when the WP(C) No.5859/2009 -2- applications were being processed, by Ext.R1(b) order dated 28/11/2006, the Scheme was withdrawn with effect from 14/11/2006. After the Scheme was thus withdrawn, by Exts.R1(e) and R1(f) orders dated 28/09/2007 and 29/01/2007 respectively, loans were sanctioned to the petitioners for acquiring Combine Harvesters. It is stated that accordingly, Combine Harvesters were delivered to the petitioners on 18/11/2007 and 02/04/2007 respectively. 4. Subsequently, by Ext.R1(d) dated 30/01/2008, which is also produced as Ext.P1, the Scheme was reinstated. According to the petitioners, subsequently, in March 2008, the machineries were inspected by the Officers of respondents 2, 4 & 6, and the 4th respondent also released the subsidy amount due under Ext.P1 Scheme, to respondents 5 & 6 as per Exts.P4 & P5, in July, 2008. However, it is pointed out by respondents 3 & 4 that subsequently the Government of India issued Ext.R3(g) clarifying the position that the reinstatement of the Scheme was effective only from 30/01/2008 and accordingly, the Head Office of the 3rd respondent also issued Ext.R3(e) clarifying the position as above to their WP(C) No.5859/2009 -3- subordinate officers. Acting upon the aforesaid clarifications, the 5th respondent refunded the subsidy amount they had received to NABARD, the Channelising Agency. It was at that stage, this writ petition was filed, and it is stated that following the interim order that is passed, the 6th respondent did not refund the amount, unlike the 5th respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments in Kerala State Beverages Corporation v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1998(2) KLT 1087) and MRF Ltd., Kottayam v. Asstt.Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and Others (2006(8) SCC 702) and contended that the petitioners having acted upon the promise made by the Government of India to extend them the benefit of subsidy and they having altered their position to their detriment and suffered prejudice, the Government of India cannot now be permitted to deny the benefit of Ext.R3(a) scheme. It is contended that both on the principles of promissory estoppal and also on the ground of legitimate expectation, they are entitled to get the subsidy amount released. 6. However, a closer examination of the facts stated above WP(C) No.5859/2009 -4- would show that though the petitioners did make applications in anticipation of receiving the benefit of subsidy under Ext.R1(a) Scheme, fact remains that long before the loans were sanctioned as per Exts.R1(e) and R1(f) orders dated 28/09/2007 and 29/01/2007, the Scheme was withdrawn by Ext.R1(b) order dated 28/11/2006. The Scheme was reinstated only by Ext.R1(d) order dated 30/01/2008, which as clarified as per Exts.R3(e) and Ext.R3(g) has only prospective effect. Therefore, at the time when the loans were sanctioned, the Scheme was not in force and hence, they had sufficient opportunity to safeguard themselves against any possible prejudice or detriment. If that be so, the fact that the petitioners had already made applications in anticipation of the benefit of Ext.R1(a) Scheme by itself, will not enable them to set up a case based on the principles of promissory estoppal or legitimate expectation. Therefore, in the light of the fact that, at the time when loans were availed of, the Scheme was not in force, I am not persuaded to think that on the aforesaid principles, the respondents are bound to extend them the benefit of a non-existing scheme. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction as WP(C) No.5859/2009 -5- sought for. Be that as it may, this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioners in approaching the respondents and seeking the benefit, which they have already claimed. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg