TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustified claims especially when the agreements entered into between the petitioner and the State Government at the time of disbursement of loan are very clear and specific, which the petitioner and respondent/State are bound to comply with. Despite violating the terms and conditions of the agreements, the petitioner is resorting to ways and means to avoid repay ment of interest-free loan. The court cannot be a tool and means in such an unholy endeavour, which the petitioner has intended to venture through the present writ petition. Appeal dismissed. - 2180 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2010 - AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH J. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release reimbursement due to the petitioner under the Freight Neutralization Scheme with effect from April 1, 2003, which claim was submitted by the petitioner, with a further prayer directing the respondents to adjust interest-free loan instalment due from the petitioner to the respondents against the aforesaid reimbursement due and restraining them from seeking repayment of instalments of interest-free loan on balance a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n availed of by the petitioner, was to be returned in three interestfree instalments falling due on December 8, 2004, December 8, 2005, and December 8, 2006 for an amount of Rs. 5,63,434 each. First instalment of interest-free loan, which was due on December 8, 2004, was repaid on March 31, 2005. Second instalment was falling due to the petitioner, the General Manager, District Industries, Jalandhar/respondent No. 3 issued a letter reminding this fact, which was received on November 23, 2005, asking for repayment of loan amount due on December 9, 2005. Since the petitioner claimed to be entitled to release of freight subsidy as per the Scheme, it submitted a detailed representation to the respondents on December 2, 2005, stating therein that the second instalment of loan be deducted from the subsidy and balance subsidy be paid to it. Another letter dated December 9, 2005 was received by the petitioner for deposit of second instalment and it was further stated therein that as no amount was received from the Government of Punjab by the Industries Department for disbursal of the freight subsidy, the same could not be paid to the petitioner nor could be adjusted against the second inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest-free loan. The petitioner was, as per the agreement, required to return the interest-free loan on the stipulated dates and in case of non-payment of the same, penal interest of 16 per cent per annum was to be charged. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as has been claimed in the writ petition, as the provisions as contained in the Scheme are very clear and specific that the amount would be disbursed on receipt of the same from the State Government. As no amount was released by the State Government under the Scheme, no disbursement was made. As per clause 2 of the Scheme, the amount of assistance was to be released on quarterly basis. In case, at the end of the quarter, the rightful claims made by the units to be covered under the Scheme during that quarter comes out to be more than the quarterly budgetary allocation, the amount of assistance was to be reduced on pro rata basis and disbursement made accordingly at the end of the quarter. The unutilised funds, if any, of the preceding quarter was to be carried forward to the next quarter, but there was no carry forward of balance funds , if any, at the end of y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Department by the State Government, which was to be released on quarterly basis for implementation of the Scheme. In case, at the end of the quarter, the rightful claims made by the units to be covered under the Scheme during that quarter comes out to be more than the quarterly budgetary allocation, the amount of assistance was to be reduced on pro rata basis and disbursement made accordingly at the end of the quarter. The unutilised funds, if any, of the preceding quarter was to be carried forward to the next quarter, but there was no carry forward of balance funds, if any, at the end of year to next financial year. Clause 6.4 deals with the disbursement of the amount, according to which disbursement of all sanctioned cases was to be made from the Directorate of Industries on quarterly basis. In case, the total sanctioned amount during the quarter was more than budgetary allocation for the quarter, the per unit sanctioned assistance amount was to be reduced accordingly on pro rata basis. According to this clause, the disbursement of amount of the sanctioned cases under the Scheme was dependent upon the sanctioned amount for the said purpose. As per clause 4, the Sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner executed agreement deeds with the State Government on December 8, 1993, April 19, 1994, April 27, 1994, and June 15, 1995 (annexure R2 to annexure R5, respectively). As per clause 6 of the aforesaid agree ments, the petitioner, who was a mortgagor, agreed that the entire amount of loan advanced under the Scheme would be repayable in three annual equal instalments, which would fall due on 11th, 12th, and 13th anniver sary of the disbursement of the first instalment of loan, according to which the instalment amount came to Rs. 5,63,434. The first instalment was due on December 8, 2004, second on December 8, 2005, and third on Decem ber 8, 2006. The petitioner failed to repay the instalments on time, but on issuance of letter repaid first instalment on March 31, 2005. It was provided in the clause 4 of the aforesaid agreement that in case of default, in respect of outstanding instalments of amount on the due date, the State Govern ment shall have right to recover the entire loan with a penal interest at 16 per cent per annum. The petitioner failed to deposit second instalment of interest-free loan with the respondents, which was due on December 8, 2005 and the petitioner has vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xes or charges on the basis of the current tariff. Such a policy decision on the part of the State shall not only be expressed by reason of notifications issued under the statutory provisions but also under the executive instructions. The appellants had undoubtedly been enjoying the benefit of (sic exemption from) payment of tax in respect of sale/consumption of electrical energy in relation to the cogenerating power plants. In view of the above, the principle which is being sought to be invoked in the present case by the petitioner, is not at all applicable and, thus, it is held that the petitioner's claim for adjustment of his interest-free loan against the claim under the Freight Neutralization Scheme, 2003 is totally misplaced and without any basis. This is a classic case of greed and lust, where an effort has been made to loot the public funds. It is not the case of the petitioner that it is going through the lean phase or has financial problems in returning the interestfree loan. The petitioner does not intend to return the loan, which was disbursed to it during the period 1993 to 1995, which it had utilized till December, 2004, without paying any interest. It has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
