Disposed

Maithri Charitable Trust v. Government of India

Kerala HC9 Nov 2022WP(C)/16874/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition filed by a charitable trust challenging indefinite delay in granting subsidy under the National Horticulture Board's scheme. Despite the beneficiary availing bank assistance and receiving a recommendation, the authority stalled the process. The court directed the respondent to take action based on the recommendation within two months, accompanied by

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to take necessary action based on the Ext. P2 recommendation within two months and conduct joint inspection expeditiously.

Maithri Charitable Trust Vs Government of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 16874 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MAITHRI CHARITABLE TRUST REG.NO.35/IV/12, UDAYAGIRI, PRAKASH P.O., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, BOSE SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, VALVANNATTU HOUSE, UDAYAGIRI, PRAKASH P.O., IDUKKI.

¶8

BY ADVS. M.PROMODH KUMAR MAYA CHANDRAN ABIMALEK C VALSAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURAL AND FARMERS WELFARE, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶11

2 NATIONAL HORTICULTURAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 85, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SECTOR-18, GORGUN, HARIYANA, PIN-122 015. 3 THE OFFICE IN CHARGE NATIONAL HORTICULTURAL BOARD, U/R-10, UPPALAM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 4 CANARA BANK KATTAPPANA BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER K.P.COMPLEX, EDASSERY JUNCTION, NEW BUS STAND ROAD, KATTAPPANA. BY ADVS. R1 by MANU S., ASG OF INDIA R2 & R3 by Adv. BINCY JOB, ADV. LEO GEORGE FOR R4

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C). 16874/2022

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2022

¶17

The 2^nd respondent had introduced a scheme named, 'Development of Commercial Horticulture through Production and Post-Harvest Management of Horticultural Crops'. It is a credit linked scheme which provides financial assistance to the beneficiaries. Being desirous of availing the benefits of the Scheme, the petitioner obtained Ext.P1 Letter of Intent from the 2^nd respondent and approached the 4^th respondent Bank for financial assistance. The Bank, after due verification, provided financial assistance and recommended for grant of subsidy by the 2^nd respondent (Ext.P2). The petitioner's grievance is that, in spite of the recommendation and grant of financial assistance way back on 25.04.2017, absolutely no action for granting subsidy is forthcoming from the 2^nd respondent.

¶18

W.P.(C). 16874/2022

¶19

¶20

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶21

In as much as the petitioner is issued with a Letter of Intent and has availed financial assistance from the 4^th respondent Bank and Bank having recommended for grant of subsidy to the petitioner, there is no justification in delaying consideration of the recommendation indefinitely.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that before taking a decision on the recommendation, a joint inspection has to be conducted by the officials of the 4^th respondent Bank and the 2^nd respondent.

¶23

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that appropriate action in the matter will be taken without delay.

¶24

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to take necessary action based on Ext. P2 recommendation. If the recommendation is found to be in order and made within time, the joint inspection shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within

¶25

W.P.(C). 16874/2022

¶26

¶27

two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appropriate further action, based on the joint inspection, shall also be

¶28

taken without further delay.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

W.P.(C). 16874/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16874/2022

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶37

EXT.	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.08.2015.
EXT.	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS DATED 25.04.2017.
EXT.	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE GRIEVANCE CELL OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.07.2017.
EXT.	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2019
EXT.	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.9.2021
EXT.	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.09.2021
Exhi	bit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL HISTORY ISSUED BY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED DATED 02.08.2022.
Exhi	bit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS UNIT DATED 31.10.2022
Exhi	bit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE BILL ISSUED BY M/S. VALAVANDAN AGRI DRYER, BODYNAYAKANUR, THENI DATED 02.11.2022

Maithri Charitable Trust v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maithri Charitable Trust v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahad Parammal Vs the State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Nair .C Vs Union of India

M/S. Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd., Vs Union of India

Eco Rubber Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

Baiju.S.Nair Vs State of Kerala

A.H.Hameedkutty, Vs State of Kerala