Allowed

K.M.George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2021WP(C)/3241/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a paddy farmer, sought assistance for a rice mill under a state scheme. Funds were withheld by a respondent officer insisting on a bank loan condition not found in sanction orders. Relying on a State Human Rights Commission order directing disbursement, the court directed the competent officer to transfer the Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent officer to disburse the sanctioned amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner's account within ten days from the date of the judgment.

K.M.George Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3241 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.M.GEORGE AGED 65 YEARS S/O.MATHEW, CHEMBARATHIKKAL HOUSE, MUTHALAKKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685 605.

¶8

BY ADVS. P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMER'S WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMER'S WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 033.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.

¶13

4 THE PRICIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 584.

¶14

5 AGRICULTURE OFFICER, MUNICIAPL KRISHI BHAVAN, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 608.

¶15

BY ADV. SMT.RASHMI K.M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

¶19

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶20

W.P.(C)No.3241 of 2021

¶21

-------------------------------------Dated this the 07^th day of September 2021

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner a paddy farmer by profession and a member of Muthalakkodam Padasekhara Samithi submitted a project proposal for establishing a 'Fully Automatic Rubberised Huller Unit' (Rice mill) having a project cost of Rs.12,20,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs twenty thousand only) claiming assistance from the 'Project based assistance for convergence at block level and mini rice mills for local processing, including special varieties of rice and support for packing and certification” under the Comprehensive Rice Development Scheme, 2017-18. The state Level Sanctioning Committee approved the project and the respondent No.2 issued Ext.P2 order sanctioning the financial assistance of Rs.10 lakhs subject to the condition that the

¶24

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

¶25

¶26

petitioner and the Muthalakkodam Padasekhara Samithi should enter into an agreement on the recommendations and economic aspects of the unit. The petitioner executed Ext.P3 agreement with the Muthalakkodam Padasekhara samithi and submitted the same before the 4^th respondent. Respondent No.2 issued Ext.P4 order granting permission to transfer the amount to the bank account of the petitioner subject to the condition that the Mill would be used for the benefit of the entire padasekharam as specified in Ext.P3 agreement. The petitioner remitted Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) to the Millimore Engineering Private Ltd., Chennai as advance for purchasing the huller machine. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 insisted that the petitioner has to establish the unit first by availing a loan from the bank and thereafter the amount would be transferred to that loan account. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no such condition in Ext.P1, P2 and P4. The petitioner

¶27

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

¶28

¶29

informed the respondent No.4 that he is not availing any loan and he is having the balance amount with him to meet the cost for the establishment of the unit. It is the case of the petitioner that he requested that the amount need not be paid to his account rather the same may be directly transferred to the account of the Millimore Engineering Private Ltd., Chennai. Even then, the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.4 refused to disburse the money. The amount sanctioned was returned to the Government. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached the State Human Rights Commission. As per Ext.P5 order, the Human Rights Commission also directed to disburse the amount within two months from the date of the order. Ext.P5 order is dated 17.03.2020. Even then, the amount is not disbursed. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P10 note issued by the 2^nd respondent, sanctioning Rupees 10 lakhs to the petitioner for establishing the rice mill. But, in Ext.P10 note, there is a stipulation that the amount is to be drawn and

¶30

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

¶31

¶32

transferred to suspense account of the bank from which the beneficiary is availing the loan and released to the loan account of the beneficiary after successful completion of the project. Such stipulation in Ext.P10 is challenged in this writ petition. The writ petition is filed with following

¶33

prayers:

¶34

“1. Call for the records relating to ExtP10 and quash the same to the extent it stipulates that the amount is to be drawn and transferred to the suspense account of the bank from which the beneficiary would be availing loan and would be released to the loan account of the beneficiary after successful completion of the project, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari; 2. Call for the records relating to ExtP11 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari;

¶35

3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order directing Respondent No.4 to pay the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakhs only) sanctioned as per Ext-P10 to the bank account of the Petitioner or of the Millimore Engineering Private Ltd., 1-F, P.T.R Apartments, 153-Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 towards the cost of “Fully Automatic Rubberised Huller Unit” proposed to be sold to the Petitioner as per Ext.P12 invoice;

¶36

4. Issue any other Writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary to grant in the circumstances of the

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

case.

5. Grant to the Petitioner the cost of this Writ Petition.”

¶41

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶42

and the learned Government Pleader.

¶43

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes me through Ext.P2 order in which it is clearly stated that the project proposal for establishing the unit by Sri.K.M.George who is authorised by the Muthalakkodam Padasekhara Samithi of Thodupuzha Krishi Bhavan with a total financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakhs only) is sanctioned and certain conditions were also there. The learned counsel takes me through Ext.P3. The learned counsel also takes me through Ext.P4 proceedings of the Director of Agriculture. In that proceedings also, it is stated that the Principal Agricultural Officer, Idukki is permitted to transfer the amount of Rupees 10 lakhs to the bank account of the Sri.

¶44

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

¶45

¶46

K.M.George with a condition that it has to be specified that the mill will be used for the benefit of the entire padasekharam as specified in the agreement. Thereafter, the counsel takes me through the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission. The learned counsel submitted that the Human Rights Commission after considering the contentions of the respondents, rejected the same and directed the authorities to transfer the amount within two months. Even then, the amount is not transferred. This is the sum and substance of the arguments of the petitioner.

¶47

4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that even though Ext.P5 order is passed by the State Human Rights Commission on 17.03.2020, subsequently the petitioner agreed that he will avail a loan and thereafter Ext.R4(h) letter is issued. The learned Government Pleader takes me through Clause No.6 of Ext.R4(h) in which it is stated that he will approach the bank for getting the amount. That is why the authorities has not challenged Ext.P5 order,

¶48

¶49

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

¶50

is the main contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader also takes me through the counter filed in this case, particularly paragraph No.9 and 14. In Paragraph No.14, it is stated that the scheme implemented by the Agricultural Department including purchase of equipments and establishment of machinery under various schemes and also for the Local Self Government Schemes, the existing procedure of transfer of subsidy is done after implementation/purchase/establishment of the unit, its field level verification certification by the concerned officers that the beneficiary has implemented purchased and installed the machinery and is functioning satisfactorily. In that paragraph it is stated that , under no scheme, the subsidy is released in advance to the beneficiary. Therefore, the amount is not disbursed. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government has no grievance against the petitioner. The Government is only trying to disburse the amount in accordance

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

to law.

5. After hearing both sides, according to me, the stand of the respondents can not be accepted. I perused Ext.P5 order of the State Human Rights Commission. The point which is now raised in the counter is considered by the Human Rights Commission. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P5 order. The relevant portion of Ext.P5 order is extracted hereunder:

¶55

"സബ്സസിഡസിയയായസിടയാണണ് 10 ലകക്ഷം രൂപ അനുവദസിക്കുന്നതതെനന്നയാ അതല്ലെങസില്‍ തനെല്ലുകുതണ് മസില്ലുക്ഷം അനുബന്ധ ഉപകരണങ്ങളക്ഷം വയാങ്ങസി സയാപസിചണ് പ്രവര്‍തനെകമമയാകസിയ നശേഷതമ ഈ സഹയായക്ഷം പരയാതെസികയാരനെണ് നെല്‍കുകയൂള്ളുതവനന്നയാ ഒനക്ഷം തെതന്ന നമല്‍പ്പറഞ നരഖകളസിതലയാന്നസിലക്ഷം പറഞസിടസില്ലെ. മറസിചണ്, ധനെസഹയായമയാതണന്നയാണണ് ഓര്‍ഡറസില്‍ നെസിനക്ഷം മനെസസിലയാകുന്നതെണ്. മയാത്രമല്ലെ, മസില്ലുക്ഷം അനുബന്ധ ഉപകരണങ്ങളക്ഷം വയാങ്ങസി സയാപസിചണ് പ്രവര്‍തനെകമമയാകസിയ നശേഷക്ഷം കൃഷസി ഓഫഫീസസില്‍ അറസിയസികയാന്‍ പരയാതെസികയാരനനെയാടണ് നെസിര്‍നദ്ദേശേസിചതെയായസി കൃഷസി അസി സ നണ് ഡയറക്ടര്‍ സമര്‍പ്പസിച എകസിബസിറണ് 2 പ്രകയാരക്ഷം കയാണുനതണ്ടെങസിലക്ഷം അല്ലെയാത പകക്ഷം ടസി തുക നെല്‍കയാന്‍ സയാധസികസില്ലെയാതയനള്ള വസിവരക്ഷം ടസിയയാതനെ അറസിയസിചതെയായസി അതെസില്‍ കയാണുന്നസില്ലെ. പ്രസ് ത ു വസിവരക്ഷം പരയാതെസികയാരതനെ അറസിയസിചസിട്ടുള്ളതെണ് 1.9.2018 ല്‍ മയാത്രമയാതണന്നണ് അസി സ നണ് ഡയറക്ടര്‍ റസിനപ്പയാര്‍ടസിനനെയാതടയാപ്പക്ഷം സമര്‍പ്പസിച എകസിബസിറണ് 3 വവ്യക്തമയാക്കുന. എന്നയാല്‍ അതെസിതനെയാതക വളതര മുമണ് 28.3.2018 ല്‍ ഡയറക്ടറുതട നമല്‍ പ്രസയാവസിച ഓര്‍ ഡറസിതന പസിന്‍ബലതസില്‍ തനെല്ലുകുതണ് മസില്ലെസിനെയായസി തചെനന്നയസിതല കമനെസികണ് പരയാതെസികയാരന്‍ ഒരു ലകക്ഷം രൂപ അഡഡയാന്‍സണ് തകയാടുത കഴസിഞസിരുന. അഡഡയാന്‍സസിനെതസില്‍ പസിന്നഫീടണ് 50,000/- രൂപ കൂടസി കമനെസികണ് നനെരസിടണ് തകയാടുതസിട്ടുതണ്ടെനക്ഷം പരയാതെസികയാരന്‍ പറയുന. അഡഡയാൻസണ് തകയാടുത തുക പരയാതെസികയാരനെണ് തെസിരസിച്ചു ലഭസിക് ക ു എന്നതുക്ഷം പ്രയയാസമയാണണ്. ഇതെസിതനെയാതക പുറതമ, മസിലണ്ല സയാപസിചണ് പ്രവർതസിപ്പസിചതെസിനു നശേഷതമ പണക്ഷം തകയാടുകയാന്‍ പയാടുള്ളു എന കയാണസിക്കുന്ന സര്‍കയാര്‍ ഉതരവുകനളയാ മറണ് നെയപരമയായ തെഫീരുമയാനെങ്ങനളയാ, കമഫീഷന്‍ ആവശേവ്യതപ്പടസിട്ടുനപയാലക്ഷം, ഹയാ ജരയാകയാനനെയാ കയാണസിച്ചുതെരയാനനെയാ എതെസിര്‍കകസികള്‍കണ്

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

സയാധസിചസിടസില്ലെ.

മസിലണ്ല വയാങ്ങയാന്‍ സഹയായക്ഷം അനുവദസിക് ക ുയുക്ഷം, പതലകക്ഷം രൂപ പരയാതെസികയാരതന ബയാങണ് അകക്കൗണ്ടെസിനലകണ് മയാറയാന്‍ ഡയറക്ടര്‍ നെസിര്‍നദ്ദേശേസിക് ക ുയുക്ഷം, അതെസിതന അടി സ യാനെതസില്‍ യന്ത്രസയാമഗസികള്‍ നെസിര്‍മസിക്കുന്ന കമനെസികണ് പരയാതെസികയാരന്‍ അഡഡയാന്‍സണ് തകയാടുക് ക ുയുക്ഷം തചെയ് ത സിനു നശേഷമയാണണ്, ഡയറക്ടറുതട 4.12.2017 തല ഓര്‍ഡറസിലക്ഷം 9.3.2018 തല കതസിലക്ഷം ഒനക്ഷം പറയയാത പുതെസിയ വവ്യവസകളമയായസി കൃഷസി വകുപ്പണ് വന്നസിരസിക്കുന്നതതെനള്ളതെണ് വളതര വവ്യക്തമയാണണ്. വസ് ത ുകള്‍ പരസിനശേയാധസിക്കുനമയാള്‍ നമല്‍ സക്ഷംഗതെസികതളല്ലെയാക്ഷം ഉനദവ് യ ഗസരുതട നെസിയമവസിരുദ്ധ പ്രവര്‍തനെങ്ങളയാതണനള്ള പരയാതെസികയാരതന വയാദക്ഷം അനെവ് യ യമയാതണന്നണ് കരുതെയാന്‍ കഴസിയസില്ലെ. ഇതരക്ഷം പ്രവൃതസികള്‍ മൂലക്ഷം പരയാതെസികയാരനെണ് കഷ്ടനെഷ്ടങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടെയായസിട്ടുതണ്ടെനക്ഷം ആയതെണ് ടസിയയാതന മനുഷവ് യ വകയാശേക്ഷം ലക്ഷംഘസികതപ്പടസിട്ടുതണ്ടെനമയാണണ് കമഫീഷതന കതണ്ടെതല്‍.

¶60

നമല്‍പറഞ വസ് ത ുകളതട തവളസിചതസില്‍, പരയാതെസികയാരനെണ് അനുവദസിച ധനെസഹയായക്ഷം നെസിനഷധസിചതെണ് ഒട്ടുക്ഷം ശേരസിയയായ നെടപടസിയല്ലെ. ആ സയാഹചെരവ്യതസില്‍, തനെല്ലുകുതണ് യന്ത്രക്ഷം സയാപസിക്കുന്നതെസിനെണ് പരയാതെസികയാരനെണ് ധനെസഹയായമയായസി അനുവദസിച 10,00,000/- (പതണ് ലകക്ഷം രൂപ) ഈ ഉതരവസിതന പകര്‍പ്പണ് കസിടസി രണ്ടു മയാസതസിനെകക്ഷം പരയാതെസികയാരതന അകക്കൗണ്ടെസില്‍ നെസിനകപസികണതമനക്ഷം തുടര്‍ന്നണ് അതെണ് സക്ഷംബന്ധസിചണ് ഒരു Action taken report കമഫീഷനെസില്‍ സമര്‍പ്പസികണതമനക്ഷം കയാര്‍ഷസിക വസികസനെ കര്‍ഷക നകമ വകുപ്പണ് ഡയറക്ടനറയാടണ് കമഫീഷന്‍ നെസിര്‍നദ്ദേശേസിക്കുന. Action taken report പരസിഗണസിക്കുന്നതെസിനെയായസി 2020 ജൂണ്‍ മയാസതസിതല കവ് യ മണ് സസിറസിക്ഷംഗസില്‍ ഈ നകസണ് വസിളസിക്കുന്നതെയാണണ്.

¶61

ഈ ഉതരവസിതന പകര്‍പ്പണ് പരയാതെസികയാരനുക്ഷം കയാര്‍ഷസിക വസികസനെ കര്‍ഷക നകമ വകുപ്പണ് ഡയറക്ടര്‍ക് ക ു തതെയാടുപുഴ കൃഷസി അസി സ നണ് ഡയറക്ടര്‍ക് ക ു അയക് ക ു. ”

¶62

6. Admittedly, Ext.P5 order is in force even now. This order was passed on 17.03.2020, after considering the contentions of the respondents. Human Rights Commission rejected all the contentions of the respondents. As long as the directions in Ext.P5 order is in force, the stand of the

¶63

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

¶64

¶65

respondents can not be accepted. According to me, the amount is to be disbursed as directed by the State Human Rights Commission in Ext.P5 forthwith. Therefore Ext.P5 order is to be implemented by the respondents concerned within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶66

Hence, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:

¶67

i) The competent officer among the respondents will disburse the amount to the account of the petitioner as directed in Ext.P5 order within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶68

Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3241/2021

¶73

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶74

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.TA(1) 15445/17 DATED 06.06.2017 CONTAINING THE WORKING INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE SCHEME.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.TA(1) 49569/17 DATED 04.12.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDNET NO.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.02.2018 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE MUTHALAKKODAM PADASEKHARA SAMITHI.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.TA(1) 49569/17 DATED 09.03.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.04.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.08.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL FROM THE OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURE MINISTER ON 01.09.2020.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF NOTE NO.TA(1) 49569/17 DATED 08.01.2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.01.2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 23.01.2021 ISSUED FROM THE MILLIMORE ENGINEERING

¶75

WP(C) NO.3241/2021

¶76

¶77

PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI.

¶78

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN STATE BANK OF INDIA, THODUPUZHA BRANCH FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.2018 TO 31.03.2018.

¶79

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF KERALA MICRO SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISES FACILITATION ACT, 2019 (ACT 16 OF 2019) EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION DATED 1/3/2021

¶80

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶81

//TRUE COPY//

¶82

PA TO JUDGE

K.M.George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aljo Joseph Vs Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.

Reji C Jacob, Vs the District Magistrate

M.D. Confrate Fuels Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Bindu a Joy Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Mathunni E.I. Vs State of Kerala

Kanakaraj.K. Vs the State of Kerala