1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4664 OF 2010 (Omkar Agrotech Private Limited .v. The Cotton Corporation of India Limited and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 is served. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 19TH JULY, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 13.05.2009 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of subsidy under the Technology Mission on Cotton Scheme. The petitioner seeks a further direction to the respondents to sanction the proposal of the petitioner by giving necessary assistance as provided under the Scheme. The petitioner is running a Ginning and Pressing Unit since the year 2004 in Mogra village. The Central Government had floated the Technology Mission on Cotton Scheme which was implemented by the Central Government through the Cotton Corporation of India Limited with a view to grant subsidies to the new Ginning and Pressing Factories and the old factories for modernisation of existing units. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's Unit fulfilled the eligibility criteria for seeking subsidy for modernisation of the existing unit and hence the petitioner applied for grant of subsidy. The respondents, however, informed the petitioner by the communication dated 13.05.2009 that the proposal of the petitioner was rejected because the petitioner was running the Ginning and Pressing Factory with the help of Conventional Bale Press and not for the Automatic Bale Press. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No.1 on 13.05.2009 by the instant petition and 2 seeks a direction to the respondents to grant the necessary financial assistance to the petitioner as provided by the scheme. Shri S.V. Purohit, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case was wrongly rejected by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner was running his Unit with the Conventional Bale Press. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing in the scheme to deny the benefit of the scheme to a Unit using a Conventional Bale Press. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, one of the Units had a Conventional Bale Press but still the respondent granted the proposal of that Unit and hence the petitioner was discriminated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was necessary for the respondent to accept the proposal of the petitioner. Shri A.S. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-The Cotton Corporation of India Limited submitted that the implementation committee under the Technology Mission of Cotton Scheme had taken a decision not to accept the proposals of 56 units from the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra as these two States had received the major share of TMC benefits i.e. to the extent of 84.29 per cent. It was submitted on behalf of the Corporation that there were 310 and 527 factories approved for Maharashtra and Gujarat out of the total 993 approved for the whole country. In such circumstances, the Committee decided not to grant the benefit of the scheme to the Units in Gujarat and Maharashtra which were to be operated by a Conventional Bale Press. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the scheme which was advertised in the year 2008 is closed and is not in operation from 31.03.2010 and the Corporation has returned the funds to the Central Government after implementing the scheme. It is also submitted on behalf of the Corporation that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that one of the Units was granted subsidy though it was operated with a Conventional Bale Press is incorrect as the proposal of that Unit was for Automatic Bale Press, but since the Automatic Bale Press could not be supplied, the Unit was granted exemption for the Automatic Bale Press and the subsidy was granted to that Unit. In the aforesaid set of facts, the learned Counsel for the Corporation 3 sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. It appears that though the proposal of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 13.05.2009, the petitioner has belatedly filed the Writ Petition on 26.08.2010, after the scheme was closed by the Corporation on 31.03.2010 and the remaining funds were already returned by the Corporation to the Central Government. Though the petitioner may be eligible for applying for the grant of subsidy under the Technology Mission on Cotton Scheme, the petitioner cannot claim the subsidy as of right. In the facts of the instant case, we find that the proposal of the petitioner was for the Conventional Bale Press and the Committee of the TMC had taken a decision of not granting the subsidy to the Units in Gujarat and Maharashtra which were operated on Conventional Bale Press as these two States had received major share of TMC benefits to the extent of 84.29 per cent. The petitioner's case was one of the 56 cases from the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra which were rejected. Since Maharashtra and Gujarat had already received 84.29 per cent of the TMC benefits, there was no reason for the respondent to grant further benefits to the Ginning and Pressing Units in the State of Maharashtra and Gujarat. It is further found that the respondent/Corporation had not granted the subsidy on the proposal of the other Unit which was run on the Conventional Bale Press. Actually, it appears that the Unit had asked for subsidy for the Unit which was to be run on the Automatic Bale Press but since the Automatic Bale Press was not supplied to the Unit within a reasonable time, the Unit had sought for an exemption in that regard and in the facts and circumstances of that case, the exemption was granted by the Corporation to that Unit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see nothing wrong with the order passed by the respondent/ Corporation on 13.05.2009 rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for grant of subsidy under the Technology Mission on Cotton Scheme. Since the petition is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.