Smt Meena Thakur vs Union Of India on 19 March, 2018

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt Meena Thakur vs Union Of India on 19 March, 2018
1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:JABALPUR

Writ Petition No.11762/2017
(Smt. Meena Thakur Vs. Union of India & others)
Dated: 19.03.2018
Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.

Shri Subodh Kathar, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Shri Riyaz Mohammed, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

Shri A.C.Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 to 7.

Today the case is listed for consideration of IA No.13482/2017, which is an application filed by the
respondents No.5 to 7 for vacating the stay order granted by this Court on 10.8.2017.

Shri A.C.Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 to 7 has submitted that the present
petition has been filed by petitioner Smt. Meena Thakur claiming to be aggrieved with the rejection
of grant of subsidy amount by NABARD allegedly due to the delayed forwarding of the necessary
documents by the respondents No.5 to 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents
No.5 to 7 that the petitioner has tried to put forward a case that she had availed the loan under the
subsidy scheme and hence she was entitled to receive the subsidy amount from the NABARD.

has vehemently argued that the petitioner had never availed the loan under any subsidy scheme and
she is not entitled to 33.33% subsidy amount as claimed by her, as the loan which was availed by the
petitioner was a general in nature without any subsidy scheme of the NABARD. Learned counsel has
also drawn the attention of this Court to the project report for construction of warehouse as
submitted by petitioner Smt.Meena Thakur and in the said project it is nowhere mentioned that the
loan is sought to be obtained by the petitioner on any scheme of the subsidy and in Clause 13 of the
said report it is clearly mentioned that the promoter's contribution would be 25% of the project cost
whereas term loan from the Bank would be 75% of the project cost.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents No.5 to 7 that even in the
application/request letter submitted by the petitioner to avail the loan, it is nowhere mentioned that
the loan is sought to be obtained under any scheme. Thus it is submitted that the stay order dated
10.8.2017 passed by this Court directing that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner,
may be vacated. It is further submitted that on account of the stay order, the legal dues which the
Bank is entitled to recover from the petitioner are being stalled.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/136633016/ 1

 Smt Meena Thakur vs Union Of India on 19 March, 2018

On the other hand Shri Riyaz Mohammed, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-National Bank
for Agricultural & Rural Development has submitted that the respondent No.3 has also filed its
return and in the return it is specifically stated that the loan which was sanctioned to the petitioner
was on 3.2.2015, whereas the scheme of subsidy was in operation only from 1.4.2014 to 5.8.2014.
Thus after having availed the loan after cut-off date 5.8.2014, the petitioner's project having not
fulfilled the eligibility criteria notified by the Government of India, the petitioner cannot claim any
subsidy under the scheme for which she was not entitled.

Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently opposed the application for
vacating stay order dated 10.8.2017. It is further submitted that two applications have been filed by
the petitioners i.e. IA No.15357/2017, which is an application for amendment and IA
No.14473/2017, which is an application for impleading Branches and Manager of respondent No.6
as parties. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have
not filed their reply to the aforesaid applications and as such the application for vacating stay order
cannot be entertained at this stage.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that alongwith the amendment
application, the petitioner has also filed certain documents obtained from the Bank of Maharashtra
under the RTI Act and as per the terms and conditions of the loan document dated 3.2.2015, it is
clearly mentioned in Clause 9 that the subsidy amount will be adjusted after liquidation of bank loan
net of subsidy. Thus it is submitted that in the loan document itself it is clearly provided that the
loan was given under the scheme. Counsel for the respondents No.5 to 7 however submits that the
aforesaid Clause 9 is only an additional condition if loan has been obtained under a scheme but it is
not applicable in the present case.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the averments made by the
respondents as also the documents filed by them, this Court finds that there is no document on
record to show that the petitioner had applied for the loan under any subsidy scheme. Apart from
that, even the respondent No.3 NABARD has also denied having provided any subsidy to the
petitioner, which leads to the only inescapable conclusion that no right emanating from the grant of
subsidy can be claimed by the petitioner.

So far as the loan document filed by the petitioner is concerned, in Clause 9 to the same there is
indeed reference to a subsidy but it appears to be a condition of format of terms and conditions of
the loan document and does not confer any right to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is
made out by the petitioner which requires continuation of the interim order. Accordingly, IA
No.13482/2017 is allowed and the interim order dated 10.8.2017 is hereby vacated.

The learned counsel for the respondents are directed to file reply to IA No.15357/2017 and IA
No.14473/2017 by neXt date of hearing.

List the case after two weeks.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/136633016/ 2

 Smt Meena Thakur vs Union Of India on 19 March, 2018

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Digitally signed by MANZOOR AHMED Date: 2018.03.23 03:26:02
-07'00' Ansari

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/136633016/ 3