IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13736 of 2001 Between: Harijana Hanumanthu, S/o Chinna Bazarappa, R/o. Ganjahalli Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1. The District Collector, Kurnool. 2. The Project Director, D.R.D.A., Kurnool. 3. The Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Kurnool. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.3 herein in deducting the subsidy amount sanctioned by the 2nd respondent herein from the loan amount, as arbitrary and illegal, in the interests of justice, and pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13736 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent- Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Kurnool, in not deducting the subsidy amount sanctioned by the 2nd respondent- Project Director, D.R.D.A., Kurnool, from the loan amount obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be the member and shareholder of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Gonegandla, and, according to him, the society sanctioned him a loan of Rs.48,800/- and the said amount was paid by the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kodumur Branch, participant bank, and the principal bank is the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kurnool. It is the case of the petitioner that, as per the scheme formulated by the Government, providing 50% subsidy to the ryots who took loan from the Society, the 2nd respondent- Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Kurnool, sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,07,000/-, vide proceedings dated 13.11.1996, and forwarded the same to the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kurnool, directing it to deduct the said amount from the loans obtained by the ryots. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, in spite of such direction, the 3rd respondent- Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Kurnool, has not taken any steps for deducting the said subsidy amount from the loan amounts obtained by him and other ryots, and the representations and oral requests made by them went in vain. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that, at paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is categorically asserted that, as per the scheme pattern, the subsidy amount sanctioned in a particular financial year has to be drawn and utilized before the last day of the same financial year and, in the instance case, for the reasons best known to the Branch Manager, Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank, Kodamur (participating bank), he has neither obtained permission from District Rural Development Agency, Kurnool, nor utilized the subsidy amount of Rs.1,07,000/- from the principal banker, during the said financial year. It is further stated that the Integrated Rural Development (IRD) Programme, under which the petitioner wants to have the benefit of availing subsidy, is no more in existence as the Government of India has abolished the said scheme with effect from 01.04.1999 and, as such, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted, and in place of the said IRD Programme, a new scheme known as Swarnajayanthi Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) has been introduced and the petitioner can avail the benefit of subsidy as per the guidelines of the said scheme, provided he fulfils the eligibility criteria. It is also stated that the unutilized funds under Integrated Rural Development Programme from 0.1.04.1999 have been transferred to SGSY Scheme and as such there are no funds available under the Integrated Rural Development Programme to provide subsidy to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid counter averments, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 10th June, 2009. IBL