Allowed

B.Lakshmi v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC22 Nov 2019WP/10537/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order refusing to release a ₹15 lakh subsidy. Finding the impugned order cryptic and bereft of reasons, the court distinguished a precedent setting aside similar orders, remanding the matter for fresh consideration with reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.11.2015 set aside; matter remanded to 2nd respondent for fresh consideration with reasons after following due procedure.

B.Lakshmi Vs The District Revenue Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.No.10537 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.10537 of 2017 and WMP No.11442 to 11444 of 2017

¶7

M/s.Rajams Digital Offset Prints Rep.by its Managing Director No.227, Peters Road, 1^st Floor Royapettah Chennai 600 014.

¶8

…. Petitioner

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

1.Government of India Rep.by Special Secretary & Development Commissioner Office of the Development Commissioner Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises(MSME) Nirman Bhawan, 7^th Floor Maulana Azad Road New Delhi 110 108.

¶11

2.Deputy Director (CLCSS) Office of the Development Commissioner Ministry of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises(MSME) Nirman Bhawan, 7^th Floor Maulana Azad Road New Delhi 110 108.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

1 / 9

¶14

W.P.No.10537 of 2017

¶15

3.The Chief General Manager Small Industrial Development Bank of India SIDBI Tower, 15 Ashok Marg Lucknow-226001.

¶16

4.The Regional General Manager Indian Bank of India No.55, Ethiraj Salai Egmore Chennai 600 108.

¶17

5.The Chief Manager Indian Bank Branch No.61, Goudiya Mutt Road Royapettah, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records on the files of the 2^nd respondent bearing No:1(5) CLCSS/Unit Assn/14-15 dated 02.11.2015 refusing to release the subsidy to the petitioner, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the subsidy amounting to a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to the petitioner bearing a registered SSI Unit with Enterpreneur Memorandum No.330022110095 (Part-II), Small.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mrs.A.V.Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy for R1 & R2 M/s.Ganesh & Ganesh for R3 No Appearance or R4 & R5

¶20

2 / 9

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.10537 of 2017

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records from the 2nd respondent, Deputy Director (CLCSS) in the Office of the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises on New Delhi relating to an order dated 02.11.2015 by which order the 2nd respondent had reused to release subsidy to the petitioner and to set aside the said order and direct the said respondent to release subsidy of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioner since the petitioner is a registered SSI Unit.

¶25

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that in order to upgrade the technology in printing the petitioner had approached the 5th respondent, Indian Bank for financial assistance. A term loan had also been sanctioned for a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- on 18.02.2011 under the CLCSS Scheme . The loan amount was also disbursed on 18.11.2011. The printing machines were also purchased and supplied to the petitioner herein. The petitioner claims that they had repaid the loan without any default. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to understand that the 1st respondent, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises at New Delhi had introduced a Scheme called Credit Linked Capital

¶26

3 / 9

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.10537 of 2017

¶29

Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS). The petitioner had applied seeking benefit under the said Scheme. That was refused by the impugned order. Questioning that refusal, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶30

3.It is contended that the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent with a delay of about a month. This point however is contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner who claimed that the application had been made within the prescribed time.

¶31

4.Let me not enter into any further discussion on that particular aspect

¶32

since , the impugned order dated 02.11.2015 is quite cryptic in nature. Para 2 of the order is extracted hereunder:

¶33

“2.Your case has been examined in this office. The extent procedures and prudency would not allow it to be considered for release of subsidy under CLCSS”.

¶34

5.An order of the similar nature had been examined by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.6878 of 2017, Chennai Expo Prints Pvt.Ltd., vs. Government of India and Another, wherein, the learned Single Judge had

¶35

4 / 9

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.10537 of 2017

¶38

examined the nature of order passed and had come to a conclusion that the order suffers since no reasons had been given in the order. The learned Single Judge had rejected the reason advanced in the counter affidavit and was of the opinion that any reason passed by the respondents should form part of the order itself. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge had remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent for better appreciation of the facts and for passing a fresh order with reasons. The operative portion of the aforementioned order is extracted below:

¶39

“11.In view of the above, the order impugned herein is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the order, dated 02.11.2015 passed by the 2^nd respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance wit law.”

¶40

6.The same order also accrues to the petitioner as the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent, does not contain any reasons and is

¶41

bereft of reasons.

¶42

7.Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back

¶43

to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. Let a fresh order be passed in

¶44

5 / 9

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.10537 of 2017

¶47

accordance with law and after following due procedure as established by law.

¶48

8.The Writ Petition stands allowed to the above terms. No costs.

¶49

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶50

09.12.2024

¶51

Index : Yes/No NCS : Yes/No KP

¶52

6 / 9

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.10537 of 2017

¶55

¶56

1.The Special Secretary & Development Commissioner Government of India Office of the Development Commissioner Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises(MSME) Nirman Bhawan, 7^th Floor Maulana Azad Road New Delhi 110 108.

¶57

2.Deputy Director (CLCSS) Office of the Development Commissioner Ministry of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises(MSME) Nirman Bhawan, 7^th Floor Maulana Azad Road New Delhi 110 108.

¶58

3.The Chief General Manager Small Industrial Development Bank of India SIDBI Tower, 15 Ashok Marg Lucknow-226001.

¶59

4.The Regional General Manager Indian Bank of India No.55, Ethiraj Salai Egmore Chennai 600 108.

¶60

5.The Chief Manager

¶61

7 / 9

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

W.P.No.10537 of 2017

¶64

Indian Bank Branch No.61, Goudiya Mutt Road Royapettah, Chennai.

¶65

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN.,J KP

¶66

Writ Petition No.10537 of 2017

¶67

8 / 9

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

W.P.No.10537 of 2017

¶70

09.12.2024

¶71

9 / 9

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Lakshmi v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Lakshmi v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Babu, Vs the District Collector

E.Mani (Royal) (Deceased) Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity

E.Vasu, S/o.Elumalai, Vs The Chairman

Yogapriya, Vs The District Registrar

Mrs. Jaibunnisa, Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer

Annamalai Vs The District Collector