Petitioner challenged refusal of full advance grant. Court held no legal right exists for fixed amount; decision rests on merits. Writ dismissed with liberty to apply later.
Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner acquitted of right to specific advance amount; may file fresh application later.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp385714.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3857 OF 2014
Suvarna w/o Harichandra Toradmal
Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others
Respondents
Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.B.Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondents No.3 & 4.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE :04th August, 2014
PER COURT:
1 Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of Respondents in extending advance only to the tune of Rs.3 lacs as against her claim for Rs.20 lacs.
2 It is the contention of the petitioner that so far as other beneficiaries are concerned, they have been granted advance matching to their request.
3 It is to be noted that under the scheme, advance is required to be granted by the sanctioning authority taking into consideration various factors. In our opinion, there is no legal right vested in the petitioner to claim advance. Since there is no legal right, argument advanced by the petitioner, based on discrimination, does not deserve consideration. The decision is
wp385714.odt
{2}
required to be taken by the authorities considering merits of each individual proposal. In our opinion, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is devoid of substance.
4 Writ Petition stands dismissed. It would always be open for the petitioner to file application for grant of advance and satisfying genuineness of claim for sanctioning additional advance, it would be open for sanctioning authority to consider such request. We clarify that order passed today in the instant petition, shall not be construed as an impediment for consideration of such request.
V.L.ACHLIYA JUDGE
R.M.BORDE JUDGE
adb/wp385714
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a legal right to claim the full advance under the scheme.
Whether the writ authority can exercise jurisdiction to grant additional advance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suvarna w/o Harichandra Toradmal
Union of India
R.M. Borde
V.L. Achliya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
