Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 317 (CAL)

Balaram Gupta v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-06-05

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2013
Judgment :- Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. By the present writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the subsidy to the tune of Rs. 58,900/- in favour of the petitioner under the Scheme of Bangla Swanirbhar Karma Sansthan Prakalpa (Atmamaryada) (the Scheme, for short) and for other reliefs. The case made by the petitioner inter alia is this that the Department of Sports and Youth Welfare, Government of West Bengal framed the said scheme for extending financial assistance to unemployed youths to make them self-employed and for the said purpose the Government decided to extend financial assistance to the unemployed youths by way of subsidies. The petitioner made an application in the prescribed form for trading in stationery and other variety goods. Out of the total project cost of Rs. 2,94,500/- the petitioner’s own contribution is Rs. 1,35,600/-. He obtained cash credit loan from a cooperative bank for an amount of Rs. 1 lac. According to him Rs. 58,900/- was to be given by the government as subsidy. The grievance of the petitioner is that the government did not sanction the subsidy in spite of his complying with all formalities and since no subsidy has been obtained by him he could not invest the full money of his total project costs. In the year 2006 he made a representation to the District Youth Officer for grant of subsidy and thereafter made representations from time to time. The petitioner’s representation was ultimately referred to the Finance Officer, Society for Self-employed and Unemployed Youth, Government of West Bengal for taking up the matter for proper remedy. The petitioner also made a representation to the said Finance Officer on Marcy 10, 2008. But in spite of everything the government has neither released the subsidy nor have they shown any reason for not sanctioning the same in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime the petitioner has obtained a cash credit loan at the rate of 14 per cent. interest per annum which he is compelled to pay. The petitioner has assailed the inaction on the part of the government to sanction the subsidy of Rs. 58,900/- as per the concerned Scheme. In the meantime the petitioner has obtained a cash credit loan at the rate of 14 per cent. interest per annum which he is compelled to pay. The petitioner has assailed the inaction on the part of the government to sanction the subsidy of Rs. 58,900/- as per the concerned Scheme. The petitioner submits that he has been made a victim of the discriminatory attitude taken by the state government and the State respondents have acted in utter negligence by not allowing the petitioner to utilize the benefit of the Scheme as an employed youth. It appears from an order, dated April 28, 2009, that when this petition was moved the State had appeared and had taken a stand that the petitioner did not comply with the formalities and instead of obtaining a term loan obtained cash credit facilities and in the year 2007 the Scheme was transferred to another department. The petitioner thereafter had shown little interest in the matter. A learned single judge had given liberty to the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within six weeks. But in spite of it no affidavit has been filed. The learned Advocate for the petitioner had submitted that he had served a notice along with a copy of a writ petition upon the office of the learned Government Pleader. But in spite of it none appeared to oppose this application. In such view of it the writ petition was treated as ready for hearing. I have heard Mr. Bhaumik in support of the petition. It is true that the representations made by the petitioner have gone unanswered. The petitioenr had already obtained loan under a certain Scheme the whole purpose of which is to enable him to be self-sustained. The problem, however, is that the petitioner has not annexed any copy of the Scheme to the writ petition neither has he given the details of the Scheme containing its terms and conditions from which the eligibility of the petitioner to get the financial assistance, as claimed by him, can be ascertained. The petitioner has relied on a letter by the General Manager of the Vidyasagar Central Cooperative Bank from which it appears that this application was duly recommended by the District Youth Officer for the purpose of starting a stationery business in the project. The petitioner has relied on a letter by the General Manager of the Vidyasagar Central Cooperative Bank from which it appears that this application was duly recommended by the District Youth Officer for the purpose of starting a stationery business in the project. This, however, cannot be treated as determination of eligibility of the petitioner to get the subsidy in the absence of any document evincing the recommendation by the District Youth Officer. That apart, the petitioner has merely mentioned the amount which, according to him, the government is required to release. Beyond this, the petition is silent about how the figure was arrived at by the petitioner or how this liability on the part of the government could be fixed. Notwithstanding the fact that the State has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition, in the absence of any document being annexed by the petitioner about the terms and conditions of the Scheme or any statement to that effect it is not a fit case where Mandamus can be issued straight away directing the respondents to release the governmental subsidy. In such view of it the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2 herein to treat the writ petition as a representation and to dispose of the same by giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the writ petition upon the State respondent within 15 days from today and the respondent no. 2 shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order as early as possible, but positively within four weeks thereafter. The said respondent is also directed to communicate the order to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. It is further directed that if the respondent no. 2 finds that the petitioner is eligible for the grant of the subsidy he should take all possible steps for the release of the same as early as possible. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.