IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 35570 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN P.V., S/O. LATE APPU, AGED 63 YEARS, 7/443 A, "BHAVANA", P.O.ERANHIKKAL, ELATHUR, CALICUT-673 002. 2. P.V. BIJU, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, 7/443 A, "BHAVANA", P.O.ERANHIKKAL, ELATHUR, CALICUT-673 002. BY ADV. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REGP, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, IRLA ROAD, VILE PARLE (WEST),MUMBAI-56 2. THE STATE DIRECTOR, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, STATE OFFICE (KERALA), M.G.ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, EAST NADAKKAVE, CALICUT-673 006. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL R3 BY ADV. SRI.V. KRISHNA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 35570/07 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE OCPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.07.07 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15.5.02 NO.REGP/KARNATAKA/M- 342/BUDGET/2002-03 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.REGP/KARNATAKA/M -342/BUDGET/2002-03 DATED 15.5.02. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 35570 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are father and son. According to them, they have started two different businesses in two separate premises by availing of two separate loans from a bank. Thereafter they applied to the 1st respondent for interest subsidies for the two industries as per a scheme framed by the 1st respondent for the purpose of payment of interest subsidy to entrepreneurs. Subsequently, on the ground that the petitioners together are running only one business, a notice has been issued to the 2nd petitioner by the 1st respondent informing him that they had received a letter from the Khadi and Village Industries Commission to recover the margin money of Rs.3 lakhs paid to the 2nd petitioner. Although both petitioners filed suit, namely, OS Nos.64/07 and 65/07 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode against the decree and those suits happened to be dismissed for non-payment of balance court fees. Subsequently, Ext.P1 direction has been issued to the bank directing refund of the margin money received in respect of the petitioners. Petitioners are WPC : 35570/07 -:2:- challenging Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 Circular, whereby it is clarified that more than one project by a single beneficiary under the scheme is not to be permitted and that payment of subsidy to more than one person pertaining to a single family also is not permissible. Petitioners' contention is that petitioners are separate individuals, although father and son, conducting separate businesses availing of separate loans from the bank. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “i. to call for the records leading up to Exhibit P2 and to quash Exhibits P1 and P2 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction. ii. to stay or suspend the operation of Exts.P1 and P2 by directing the respondents not to act upon them. iii. to issue such other writ, order or direction as may be prayed for and which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2, wherein it is contended that the petitioners suppressed facts and availed benefits, which they were not eligible for and hence steps were taken to recover the benefits given to them. According to them, although the petitioners proposed two units and make it appear as if there are separate units, availing of margin money for two units, it WPC : 35570/07 -:3:- was found out by respondents that the same were not correct. According to the respondents, petitioners together are running only one business. Respondents 1 and 2 therefore would contend that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. For granting relief to the petitioners, I have to enter a finding to the effect that the petitioners are running two separate businesses. The petitioners have not produced any documents or evidence in support of their contentions. As such ascertainment of those facts involve proving facts on evidence which cannot ordinarily be done in a writ petition. In fact in respect of the same relief, the petitioners had filed suits before appropriate civil court, which have been dismissed, admittedly, for nonpayment of balance court fees. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb WPC : 35570/07 -:4:-