The Karnataka High Court declined to grant indulgence in a writ petition challenging the rejection of an interest subsidy claim. The court held that the claim fell outside the scheme's timeline and involved policy matters, so the petitioner was not entitled to relief.
Writ petition dismissed; costs made easy.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.3690 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
HOTEL BASANT RESORTS & HOTELS (I) P. LTD., NO.3, 4TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. REPRESENTED BY: SRI. BASANT KUMAR PATIL, MANAGING DIRECTOR.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.H.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADANAN PILLAI R., CGC FOR R-1; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
2
ORDER DATED 21.09.2015 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF TOURISM, NEW DELHI, AND FIRST RESPONDENT AT ANNEX-J AND DIRECT R-1 TO PAY A SUM OF RS.39,85,440.00 TOGETHER WITH INTEREST TO THE PETITIONER @ 12% P.A. EVER SINCE THE AMOUNT DUE TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner, a Company incorporated under the provisions of erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 21.09.2015 made by the first respondent at Annexure-J whereby its request for grant of Interest Subsidy in terms of the Government of India Scheme -2002 has been turned down.
3
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) The Interest Subsidy Scheme of the Central Government was in operation w.e.f. 01.04.2002; it enured for the benefit of all the new hotel projects that were approved by the Central Government on or before 31.03.2002; thus, apparently, the projects undertaken subsequently are recommended by the second respondent after the cut-off date did not fall within the prescribed timeline; what transactions should have Interest Subsidy is a matter of policy and therefore, the claims that do not fit into the policy framework are not justiceable; the vehement reliance of the petitioner that the Reference Note 16/1 maintained by the second respondent shows that petitioner's proposal was received before 07.07.2006 in the HR Division would not much come to his aid, inasmuch as, it does not authenticate that the claim was made on or before 31.03.2002.
b) In the case at hands, though the hotel construction project was of the year 1999, the application for grant of Interest Subsidy apparently was made long after the cut-off date i.e., only in May, 2005; a Coordinate Bench of this Court
4
in petitioner's W.P.No.41778/2011 disposed off on 08.07.2015 had only directed consideration of petitioner's representation in accordance with law; obviously, the adjudging of merits of the claim was left to the answering respondent namely, the Government of India; petitioner's representation having been considered, is rightly rejected.
c) The impugned order inter alia has given the following
reasons for declining request of the petitioner for the grant of Interest Subsidy:
"i) The ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India discontinued the Scheme of Interest Subsidy with effect from 01.04.2002 for all the new hotel projects.
ii) However, it was decided that all the eligible hotel projects approved by the Department on or before 31.03.2002 would continue to avail interest subsidy as per the then Scheme.
iii) The proposal for grant of Interest subsidy was received from Hotel Basant Resorts & Hotels (I) Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru in May 2005, i.e. after more than three years after the closure of the Scheme of Interest Subsidy by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Tourism."
These reasons assigned by the Central Government for dis-
favouring petitioner's representation are germane to the consideration and therefore, cannot be faltered, in the
5
absence of there being any error apparent on the face of record.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being
devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly is.
Costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS/GRD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of an order denying an interest subsidy due to delay in application falls under the micro-economic activities subject to judicial review.
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference despite policy reasons for rejection.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HOTEL BASANT RESORTS & HOTELS (I) P. LTD.
MINISTRY OF TOURISM (H & R DIVISION), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED.
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
