JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. The case of the petitioner is that with a view to earn livelihood, she applied for a loan with respondent No. 1 to start tailoring and stitching factory for readymade garments at Ghora Chowki, Shimla. The project report was accordingly prepared and submitted to respondent No. 1. The said respondent approved the project report of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.3 lac and forwarded the case for the purpose of financing the project to respondent No. 2. On 31.3.2003, respondent No. 1 addressed a sanction letter (Annexure P-1) to respondent No. 2, copy of which was forwarded to the petitioner. The project was sponsored under the margin money scheme of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (hereinafter referred to as “KVIC”). In the said project, a subsidy of Rs.90,000/- was to be kept with respondent No. 2 in a fixed deposit. It was further the case of the petitioner that as per the policy scheme of respondent No. 1, firstly the beneficiary was to contribute upto 50% of the total cost of the project, which was subsequently amended vide circular dated 11.3.2003 (Annexure P-2) as per which, it was decided that the maximum own contribution of the beneficiaries in the project cost would be 10% in case of general category and 5% in case of weaker section. The said decision was to be effective from 1.4.2003. 2. Respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 3.7.2003 (Annexure P-3) informed respondent No. 1 that the project of the petitioner had been sanctioned. As per said sanction letter, the expenditure loan was Rs.1 lac, working capital loan was Rs. 2 lac and thus, the total project cost was Rs. 3 lac, out of which the promoter’s equity was Rs.0.15 lac. According to the petitioner, thereafter respondent No. 2 sent the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 1 for releasing the subsidy/margin money of Rs.90,000/-, which was lying in the shape of an FDR with respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P- 4). On 27.6.2004 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 to allow her to shift the said unit to Hotel Angel Inn, Village Aleo, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu and the requisite permission was granted in her favour vide communication dated 3.7.2004 (Annexure P-6). 3. On 27.6.2004 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 to allow her to shift the said unit to Hotel Angel Inn, Village Aleo, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu and the requisite permission was granted in her favour vide communication dated 3.7.2004 (Annexure P-6). 3. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 also directed its Assistant Development Officer to inspect the unit of the petitioner to find out as to whether the same was functioning or not, who submitted his inspection report dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure P-7), which demonstrated that the petitioner had set up her readymade garments unit in Hotel Angel Inn Complex. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 rather than releasing the subsidy of Rs.90,000/- in her favour issued impugned communication dated 27.12.2005 (Annexure P-8) instructing respondent No. 2 to refund an amount of Rs.90,000/- as margin money and interest thereon to respondent No. 1 immediately for being refunded to KVIC in view of the fact that the petitioner had not set up a new unit as per the norms of the scheme. According to the petitioner, the said impugned communication is not sustainable in the eyes of law because there was no occasion for respondent No. 1 to have had issued the same and in fact, she was entitled for the release of the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/-. Accordingly, in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 5. Respondent No. 1 in its reply contested the case of the petitioner and submitted that KVIC through H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board under REGP (margin money scheme) sanctioned the margin money in favour of the petitioner for setting up a new unit vide communication dated 31.3.2003 (Annexure P-1). However, there is a condition precedent that the credit facility should be provided for a new proposed unit and no funds should be sanctioned for any expansion or against an existing unit as is evident from communication dated 31.3.2003. The stand of respondent No. 1 is that the project of the petitioner was in fact not a new project, as per the norms of the Scheme. The stand of respondent No. 1 is that the project of the petitioner was in fact not a new project, as per the norms of the Scheme. Therefore, keeping in view this fact and condition No. 4 of the communication dated 31.3.2003, when it came to the notice of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner had already set up a unit before the project was sanctioned in her favour by the authorities concerned, margin money of Rs.90,000/- was rightly ordered to be refunded back as granting the same in favour of the petitioner would have been against the norms of the scheme. 6. Respondent No. 1 has placed on record along with reply purchase bills of the material including machines dated 21.4.2003, 25.4.2003 and 5.5.2003 (Annexures R-1/A to R-1/C), which were prior to the date the petitioner’s project was sanctioned. Therefore, it was pleaded that since the petitioner was not eligible and entitled to be granted margin money, respondent No. 1 rightly directed respondent No. 2 to refund back the amount of Rs.90,000/-, which was lying with the said respondent in the shape of an FDR. 7. It was further case of respondent No. 1 that it had received communication from respondent No. 2 dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure R-2), in which it was mentioned that the petitioner had informed respondent No. 2 on 3.7.2003 that she was not interested in term loan and she would establish the unit from her own sources. As per respondent No. 1, this fact was withheld by respondent No. 2 and petitioner from respondent No. 1, which was also clear violation of terms and conditions of the REGP (margin money scheme) because as per the guidelines of KVIC, the project cost must consist of own contribution, capital expenditure loan and working capital loan/C.C. and in the absence of any of the components, the project is ineligible. 8. Respondent No. 2 has also filed its reply stating therein that no relief has been claimed against it and the petitioner is not having any cause of action against respondent No. 2. According to the respondent No. 2, in fact it is only a disbursing agent and it has nothing to do with the sanctioning of the scheme or payment of margin money etc. 9. According to the respondent No. 2, in fact it is only a disbursing agent and it has nothing to do with the sanctioning of the scheme or payment of margin money etc. 9. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the reply filed by respondent No. 1, in which the petitioner has reiterated her case as put forth in the petition and denied the contentions raised in the reply. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 11. During the course of the arguments, this court called upon learned counsel for the petitioner to place on record copy of the project report, which was initially submitted by the petitioner to respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this was the responsibility of the respondent No. 1 and not the petitioner. Faced with this situation, this Court in the interest of justice, called upon respondent No. 1 to provide the records of the case of the petitioner and the said records were made available to the court. The suggestion of the Court to sit across the table and discuss the matter with respondent No. 1 was also not accepted by the petitioner and it was urged that the case be decided on merits by this Court. 12. It is apparent from the records produced by respondent No. 1 that the case of the petitioner, for loan of Rs. 3 lac for setting up textile unit under REGP scheme i.e. Rural Employment General Programme of KVIC through the H.P. State Khadi and Village Industries Board, was forwarded by the Assistant Development Officer of respondent No. 1 to its Chief Executive Officer vide communication dated 31.3.2003. The application form submitted by the petitioner also contained an affidavit dated 29.3.2003 having been sworn in by her, in which it was categorically admitted that she intends to take financial help under margin money scheme of KVIC and undertakes to set up a new unit from the financial assistance involved in margin money scheme of KVIC and that the funds including subsidy availed under this scheme will be purely utilized for the new proposed activity and not for the existing activity/unit. 13. 13. The project report appended with the said application of the petitioner also expressly contained that she proposed to start a readymade garments manufacturing unit under REGP scheme and the proposed unit was to have provision for manufacturing all kinds of gents, ladies and children wears, jackets and other related products. 14. Thus, it is crystal clear from the perusal of the application and project report submitted by the petitioner that she had applied for loan of Rs.3 lac to respondent No. 1 for setting up a new textile unit. 15. The Chief Executive Officer sent the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 for the appraisal of the report on 31.3.2003 (Annexure P-1). The factum of the loan having been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was conveyed by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 3.7.2003 (Annexure P-3). This was followed by communication dated 7.7.2003 (Annexure P-4) addressed to respondent No. 1 in the shape of an application form-cum-receipt for claiming margin money from respondent No. 1, which was duly signed on behalf of the petitioner. Vide this communication, respondent No. 1 was intimated that a village industry project has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner under the margin money scheme of KVIC and it was requested to advise respondent No. 2 to disburse an amount of Rs.90,000/- being margin money sanctioned by the commission. 16. Thus, the fact of the matter is that the project of the petitioner was in fact sanctioned by respondent No. 2 only on 3.7.2003 (Annexure P-3). In other words, there was no sanction of the project of the petitioner before 3.7.2003. There is no material placed on record from, where it can be inferred that the petitioner was 100% sure that her project would be approved and cleared by respondent No. 2 or before grant of actual sanction by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner, there was some “in principal sanction” by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. However, it is a matter of record that even before the project of the petitioner was sanctioned by respondent No. 2, there were bills issued in favour of the petitioner qua the purchase of the machinery, which were submitted by her to respondent No. 2 and these bills are dated 21.4.2003, 25.4.2003 and 5.5.2003. These bills have been duly appended with the reply by respondent No. 1. These bills have been duly appended with the reply by respondent No. 1. In the rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 1, the explanation given by the petitioner to these bills is that though the sanction was conveyed on 3.7.2003, but respondent No. 1 had issued sponsoring of project letter to respondent No. 2 on 31.3.2003 (Annexure P-1) which was in reference to consent letter issued by respondent No. 2 dated 8.3.2003 and it was only thereafter the she as per terms and conditions contained in Annexure P-1 went ahead to comply with the same and the purchase of the machinery was done as per the petitioner’s obligation. 17. In my considered view, the said explanation which has been given by the petitioner is incorrect because there is no mention in communication dated 31.3.2003 that the petitioner had to immediately purchase machinery. On the contrary, it is apparent from the perusal of the said communication that respondent No. 1 had only forwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 for the purpose of grant of sanction and this sanction admittedly was granted to her on 3.7.2003. Therefore, it is amply clear from the material on record that the petitioner had submitted bills to respondent No. 2 with regard to purchase of machinery pertaining to the months of April and May 2003, though the fact of the matter is that the said project was sanctioned by respondent No. 2 only on 3.7.2003. Therefore, the only inference which can be drawn from the said facts is that the unit of the petitioner was already in existence before the project of the petitioner was actually sanctioned by respondent No. 2. Had that not been the case, then it is not understood as to why the petitioner had purchased machinery worth almost Rs.1 lac even before her project was sanctioned by respondent No. 2. In my considered view, the machinery could have been purchased for setting up a new project only after project had been sanctioned by respondent No. 2 and loan in lieu of that had been released in favour of the petitioner. 18. In my considered view, the machinery could have been purchased for setting up a new project only after project had been sanctioned by respondent No. 2 and loan in lieu of that had been released in favour of the petitioner. 18. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was already having an existing unit before the project was in fact sanctioned by respondent No. 2 and in this view of the matter, there is no infirmity with the impugned communication dated 27.12.2005 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No. 1 vide which it had directed respondent No. 2 to refund the subsidy/margin money. 19. Further, communication dated 27.12.2015 is also addressed to the petitioner. This communication refers to earlier communications dated 7.6.2005 and 6.9.2005 on the same subject. As per records, vide communication dated 7.6.2005, respondent No. 1 had called upon respondent No. 2 to refund an amount of Rs.90,000/- along with interest, which was margin money pertaining to the unit of the petitioner on the ground that she had not set up readymade garments unit as was reported by the Assistant Development Officer of the Board at Shimla and Kullu. A copy of this communication was also addressed to the petitioner. It is evident from the records that the petitioner shifted the proposed unit from Ghaura Chowki, Shimla to Hotel Angel’s Inn, Village Aleo, Manali, District Kullu, without intimation/permission of the respondent No. 1. There is letter on record of Assistant Development Officer of the Board dated 18.6.2004, in which it is stated that the said Officer went to inspect the unit of the petitioner and found that there was no unit being run by the petitioner at Ghaura Chowki Shimla and in fact, 10 years’ rent agreement with the landlord had been cancelled about four months back. Copy of this letter was also addressed to the petitioner. This letter was followed by another letter dated 27.7.2004 vide which respondent No. 1 asked the petitioner to have her unit inspected, otherwise the margin money shall be recalled. In response to this, there is a letter dated 7.8.2004 written by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 intimating therein that she had shifted her unit from Ghaura Chowki, Shimla to Hotel Angel’s Inn, Village Aleo, Phatti Vashisht, Manali, District Kullu and she had purchased her own land for this purpose. In response to this, there is a letter dated 7.8.2004 written by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 intimating therein that she had shifted her unit from Ghaura Chowki, Shimla to Hotel Angel’s Inn, Village Aleo, Phatti Vashisht, Manali, District Kullu and she had purchased her own land for this purpose. It was also mentioned that she had utilized the funds as per project report and she was not aware that permission was required from the Khadi Board to shift the unit. It was further mentioned that she was planning to shift to Manali completely as her business had already been shifted to that place. 20. Incidentally, vide communication dated 7.6.2005, it is clearly mentioned that as per the report of the Assistant Development Officer of the Board, the petitioner had mis-utilized the funds as she had not set up any readymade garments unit as per terms of Scheme. In response, there is a communication dated 20.6.2005, in which it is mentioned that she was already running readymade garments unit at Hotel Angel’s Inn, Village Aleo, Manali, District Kullu. Similarly, vide communication dated 6.9.2005, respondent No. 1 had also requested respondent No. 1 to refund back the margin money of Rs.90,000/- pertaining to the unit of the petitioner on the ground that she had not set up new unit as per norms of the scheme. Copy of this communication was also addressed to the petitioner. Incidentally, there is another communication dated 20.8.2005 addressed by the petitioner to respondent No. 1, contents of which are reproduced herein-below: “I want to bring this to your kind notice that my unit for the readymade garments was sanctioned by your department in the year 2002-03 for Rs.3 lac only. At that time promoter’s own contribution was permitted to the extent of 50% of the total cost of the project. Copy of the circular enclosed. As I was in a hurry to establish my unit I invested my money for the machinery and fixtures and availed the working capital from the bank. Bank has visited my unit on 10.7.2003 and found working and got satisfied. You are therefore requested to direct the bank to retain the margin money with them only. Please do the needful at the earliest. Thanking you.” 21. Bank has visited my unit on 10.7.2003 and found working and got satisfied. You are therefore requested to direct the bank to retain the margin money with them only. Please do the needful at the earliest. Thanking you.” 21. None of these documents have been placed on record by the petitioner and in my considered view there is material concealment of facts by the petitioner and she has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner cannot be permitted to say that she was not aware of the documents which have been referred to by me from the records because all these documents are addressed to the petitioner. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments could not satisfy this Court as to why the petitioner purchased machinery in the months of April and May 2003 even before her project was sanctioned by respondent No. 2. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to why the factum of shifting of unit by the petitioner from Ghaura Chowki, Shimla to Hotel Angel’s Inn, Village Aleo, Manali, District Kullu was not brought to the notice of respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not inform this Court as to on which date and where the said unit of the petitioner was registered with any statutory authority. Not only this, it is apparent and evident from what I have discussed above that the earlier communications dated 7.6.2005 and 6.9.2005 issued by respondent No. 1, copies of which were duly sent to the petitioner on the subject of the refund of the margin money, have been withheld by the petitioner from the Court. Therefore, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is, thus, apparent that no new unit has been set up by the petitioner as per the norms of the KVIC and the steps taken by respondent No. 1 for the refund of the margin money along with interest cannot be termed as illegal. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. Records produced by respondent No. 1 be returned back to the said respondent.