IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10814 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.R.SUNIL RAJ, MURIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.LAVARAJ M.G. SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, NORTH PARUR BRANCH, NORTH PARUR. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 10814 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an unemployed youth. Under the self- employment scheme of the Government, the petitioner applied for a loan before the 3rd respondent-Bank, for the purpose of purchasing an autorickshow as a means of self-employment. The 2nd respondent, after enquiry, decided that the petitioner is eligible to the benefit of the scheme and sanctioned subsidy to the tune of Rs. 48,962/- and forwarded the application to the 3rd respondent for granting loan. The 3rd respondent sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,46,000/- to the petitioner. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the loan is not being disbursed by the bank for the reason that the same would be disbursed only after the receipt of subsidy from the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent took the stand that the subsidy would be released only after disbursal of loan by the bank. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to issue a communication to the 3rd respondent to the effect that the subsidy in relation to the application of the petitioner would be released to the Bank immediately on disbursal of the loan amount to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent, as stated in Ext. P1, forthwith. ii. to direct the 3rd respondent to disburse the loan to the petitioner as sanctioned by Ext. P2 forthwith, without awaiting any further undertaking from the 2nd respondent; iii. To direct the 2nd and the 3rd respondent to disburse the loan and the subsidy sanctioned as per Exts.P1 and P2 in regard to the application of the petitioner forthwith. 2. On 8-4-2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court has passed the following interim order: W.P.C. No. 10814/2010. -: 2 :- “Admit. Issue urgent notice to respondents 1 and 2. Learned standing counsel takes notice for the third respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Spl. Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned standing counsel for the third respondent. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that there is gross delay in sanctioning and paying the subsidy amount by respondents 1 and 2 and therefore only after releasing the subsidy amount alone, the loan amount can be disbursed to the petitioner, and the Bank cannot indefinitely wait for the grant of subsidy. But going by the scheme, only after the loan is disbursed, subsidy can be granted. There may be administrative delay in sanctioning and disbursing the subsidy, but that will not prevent the beneficiary from getting the loan. 4. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to disburse the amount of loan on usual terms, if any, within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the Bank will report the matter to the 2nd respondent for claiming the subsidy portion and the 2nd respondent will expedite the matter.” 3. Today, both parties were heard. After hearing, I am satisfied that the writ petition itself can be disposed of in terms of the interim order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.