Gokaramaiah Swayam Sahayak Sangam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010211952023

¶2

r k
0?

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION No: 11092 OF 2023 /

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gokaramaiah Swayam Sahayak Sangam, H.No.1-2017, Telugu Street Kondapuram Village C.Belagam Mandal, Kurnool District rep.by its Member/Farmer Telugu Nadipi Venkatesh.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary. Agriculture Department. Secretariat, Velagapudi. Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat. Velagapudi. Amaravathi. Guntur District.

¶13

The District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

¶14

The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture Agriculture Department,

¶15

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

The District Agriculture Officer, Kurnool District.

¶17

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department,

¶18

0/o.Collectorate, Kurnool District.

¶19

M/s. Rakesh Enterprises, #26-108-A2, Govt. Degree College Road,

¶20

Opp.llto Company, Nandyal-518502, Kurnool District, rep.by its

¶21

Proprietor Rakesh Khande.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

¶24

/ ^ /

¶25

pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring action of the respondents^2to6hereinin not paying the subsidy amount of Rs.6,68,371/for procuring combine harvester as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents^{hereinforthwith} to pay the aforesaid subsidy amount along with the interest @ 24% p.a. lA No: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein forthwith to process and pay the subsidy amount of Rs.6,68,371/- infavour of the petitioner along with interest @24% p.a., pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.DURGA PRASAD

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6: GP FOR AGRICULTURE < " Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI CHAPPIDI VENKATESH The Court made the following order:

¶28

[3311]

¶29

APHC010211952023

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

Monday, the Fourteenth Day of July Two Thousand and Twenty Five

¶33

Present

¶34

The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

¶35

Writ Petition No: 11092 of 2023

¶36

Between:

¶37

Gokaramaiah Swayam Sahayak Sangam

¶38

...Petitioner

¶39

and

¶40

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶41

...Respondents

¶42

Counsel for the petitioner:

¶43

IP.Durga Prasad

¶44

Counsel for the respondents:

¶45

1.G.P. for Finance Planning

¶46

2.G.P. for Agriculture

¶47

S.Chappidi Venkatesh

¶48

The Court made the following:

2

W.P.No.11092 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶53

“...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondents No.2 to 6 herein in not paying the subsidy amount of Rs.6,68,371/- for procuring combine harvester^as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles^14and21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein forthwith to pay the aforesaid subsidy amount along with the interest @ 24 percent p.a and pass...”

¶54

The brief case of the petitioner is that: a. The petitioner is a member / partner of a farmers’ cooperative society named Gokaramaiah Swayam Sahayaka Sangam" in Kondapuram Village. The society availed a government^{mechanization} scheme aimed at providing subsidized agricultural machinery to farmers. Under this scheme, the government offered 40% subsidy, with 50% cost financed by banks and the remaining 10% to be paid by the farmers' cooperatives.

¶55

b. The petitioner's society applied for and received approval to procure a combined harvester under Project ID:AP/CHC/2018-19/071⁵ dated 12-12-2018. The respondent No.6 issued a permit, allowing the purchase within 30 days from an approved dealer. The respondent No.7 / dealer quoted the total cost of the harvester at Rs.22,55,888/-, with the subsidy portion being Rs.6,68,371/-. Due to potential delays in subsidy disbursement, the dealer advised the petitioner to pay the full amount

¶56

3

¶57

W.P.No,11092 of 2023

¶58

upfront, assuring that the from the government. subsidy would be reimbursed once received c. Acting on this advice, the petitioner paid the entire sum and purchased the harvester, The respondent No.7 later delivery and confirmed the requested the authorities to transfer the ^he petitioner. subsidy directly to Despite this, the - respondents failed subsidy. The petitioner submitted a ^0 release the Spandana Program at rmi , '■^P'^esentation dated 23.08.2021 in the respondent No.5atissuedCollectorate office, Kurnool ’ i response to which dated 04.01.2023 proceedings vide No.E7/FM-2018-19/2023 requesting the respondent No.4 to subsidy amount to release the the dealer with instructions to However pay to the farmers. no further action was taken. The delay has hardship and mental caused financial agony to the farmers personal sources. who raised funds from 3. Heard the learned 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner. Assistant Government Pleader respondents No.1, 3 to 6 placed representing on record the written i Director of Agriculture . A.P. addressed to G.P instructions of the paymentLr.No. Courtcouldcase/not be01/2025, dated 13.07.2025 andforsubmittedAgriculturethat videthe made due to lapsed budget are adjusted to the r and once the funds account of the Director of Agriculture authority will submit bill as per the fhe said procedure and clear the supplier, however shp fnrth dues to the amount has to In reply, the learned group. counsel for the petitioner as per the written i submitted that even instructions, the subsidy to the amount would be transferred manufacturers / dealer’ the farmers’ s account through D.B.T. mode but not to group and that as the dealer who the respondent No. supplied the harvester ISi and he had oi g'ven the letter dated 28. 12.2022 to

¶59

4

¶60

W.P.No,11092 of 2023

¶61

the District Collector, Kurnool District, copy of which^{wasenclosedto} the petition, the payment may be ordered to be made to the respondent No.7.

¶62

In the light of the above circumstances, since the^amountduehas been admitted and it is also admitted that the amount can be paid to the dealer / respondent No.7 who had given letter of consent dated 28.12.2022 to release the subsidy amount directly in^thenameofthe group itself i.e., customer, but in view of the objection of the other respondents to release in the name of the customer, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents No.1 to 6 to release the payment within two (2) months in the name of the dealer / respondent^No.7who in-turn shall pay the same to the farmers’ group on receipt of such payment within one (1) week there-from. There shall^{benoorderasto} costs.

¶63

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand^vacated.

¶64

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^closed.

//TRUE COPY//

To,

0FF\CER SECTION