K.SADANANDAN V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/38322/2015

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Public Interest Litigation filed by K. Sadanandan, a political and social activist, against the Wayanad Social Service Society (WSSS) and various government bodies, alleging misuse of funds under the ASIDE Scheme for a Coffee Curing Unit. The petitioner sought to cancel the grants and recover the disbursed amounts, claiming that the Society had not established the unit as proposed. The respondents, including KINFRA and the Coffee Board, provided evidence and affidavits demonstrating that the Society had indeed started the unit and was operating it successfully. The court dismissed the petition, finding no basis for the allegations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 721047 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MINI MENON; ABRAHAM VETTOOR; ANIL JOSE; P U SHAILAJAN; BENNY THOMAS; JOSON MANAVALAN; KURYAN THOMAS; K JOHN MATHAI
• Assessee Lawyers: P B KRISHNAN; P M NEELAKANDAN; S NITHIN; SABU GEORGE; P B SUBRAMANYAN
• Keywords: Corruption; Mandamus; Public Interest Litigation; Subsidies; ASIDE Scheme; Coffee Curing Unit; Export Infrastructure

Judgement Text

"WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942 WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) PETITIONER/S: K.SADANANDAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O.LATE K.NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SREE SADANAM, PUZHAMUDI P.O., KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL) SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (STATE CELL), MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001. 2 STATE LEVEL EXPORT PROMOTION COMMITTEE (SLEPC) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE CHIEF SECRETARY,STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3 THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KINFRA) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA HOUSE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. 4 COFFEE BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NO.1, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -2- 5 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE COFFEE BOARD, NO.1, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE- 560001. 6 JOINT DIRECTOR (EXT) COFFEE BOARD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121. 7 SRI.CHANDRASHEKHAR SECRETARY, COFFEE BOARD, NO.1., DRI.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE-560001. 8 WAYANAD SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY (WSSS) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD- 670645. R1 BY SMT.MINI R.MENON, ADDL.CGSC R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW VETTOOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.SRI.ANIL ABEY JOSE R1 BY ADV. SMT.MINI R.MENON ADDL.CGSC R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN R3-7 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R3-7 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R3-7 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R3-7 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R8 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) R8 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL ABEY JOSE R8 BY ADV. SMT.RIA THOMAS OTHER PRESENT: SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG FOR R1, SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR GP FOR R2, SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, FOR R4 TO R7, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16- 02-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -3- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 16th day of February, 2021 Shaji P. Chaly, J. This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by a person, stated to be a political and social activist based in Wayanad District, seeking the following reliefs:- “A. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent No.1 to 4 to take all necessary steps to cancel the grant sanctioned to Respondent No.8 under the ASIDE Scheme and recover the amounts disbursed to Respondent No.8 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. B. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent No.1 to 4 to monitor the establishment of the Coffee Curing unit by Respondent No.8 pursuant to the proposal submitted by it for grant under the ASIDE Scheme and take appropriate remedial measures including imposition of penalty on Respondent No.8 WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -4- for siphoning of the grant. C. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent No. 1 to conduct an enquiry into the circumstances under which the officials of the Coffee Board particularly Respondents 5 to 7 were instrumental in sanctioning an illegal grant to Respondent No.8 under the ASIDE Scheme and take appropriate action against the errant officials.” 2. The basic contention advanced is that there is increasing corruption in the distribution of subsidies and other largesse by the State. Petitioner further states that he is also concerned for the farmers / agriculturists of Wayanad District, many of whom are in a debt trap. 3. The specific contention advanced is that the assistance to the State, for development of export infrastructure, is a laudable Scheme for development of infrastructure. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India is the nodal Ministry and the Scheme provides for development of infrastructure to States. Out of the total WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -5- outlay, 90% is distributed to the States, and 10% is sanctioned by the Department of Commerce, as incentives to the States, for promoting exports, subject to the guidelines under the Scheme specified above. 4. The 8th respondent, namely the Wayanad Social Service Society, is a Society Registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the year 1974, and the Priests of Catholic Diocese of Mananthavady are the Directors of this Society. The Society has claimed an investment subsidy with the Department of Industries, Government of Kerala, for a Coffee Curing Unit, with a capacity of 300 metric tonnes, and the date of investment is mentioned as 03/2014, and production is stated to have commenced in the unit from 01.09.2004. The total project cost was shown as Rs. 14.42 crores and the Society submitted a proposal to the State Level Export Promotion Committee under the Scheme, for implementing the project. The 15th State Level Export Promotion Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala in its meeting held on 20.03.2012, sanctioned a sum of Rs. 8.22 crores for the project, and the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA), the nodal agency under the Scheme, was authorized to WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -6- release funds for the implementation of the Scheme. 5. According to the petitioner, apart from the fund sanctioned under the Scheme, a sum of Rs. 763.32 lakhs had also been secured as loan by the Society from NABARD for a project called Streamlining and Upscaling Organic Farming for Sustainable Livelihood Sections in Wayanad District, which assistance was sanctioned under an umbrella program for nature resource management. A sum of Rs. 30 lakhs had been collected by the Society from the State Government under the said self same Scheme. After the disbursement of amounts under the Scheme, and by NABARD, there was no effective monitoring of the activities of the Society by the authorities, including the nodal agency KINFRA. The State Level Committee also did not take any steps to monitor the project and according to the petitioner, no infrastructure has been made by the Society as shown in the project report approved under the Scheme. Other contentions are also raised in respect to the other amounts secured by the Societies by approaching the Coffee Board etc., for starting Curing Unit and other allied projects. The sum and substance of the grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that the amounts under the Scheme and the grants WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -7- provided by NABARD and Coffee Board were misused by the Society and no project had been started. 6. A counter affidavit is filed by the KINFRA, disputing the allegations raised by the petitioner, and also submitting that the Society is functioning well, and the units have been started, and the contentions and allegations raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are bereft of bonafides, and against the true facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Respondents 4 to 7, namely the Coffee Board and its officials, have filed a joint counter affidavit supporting the contentions advanced by KINFRA, and also stating that the Society is functioning well, and they have put up all the infrastructure, so as to have the Coffee Curing Unit, as well as the Agro Processing Centre. 8. KINFRA has also filed an additional affidavit as directed by this Court on 11.02.2021, wherein also it is submitted that the entire amount due under the Scheme was paid to the 8th respondent Society in accordance with the scheme formulations and there are no WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -8- deviations by the scheme beneficiary. 9. The 8th respondent Society has filed a very detailed counter affidavit dated 16.02.2021, and along with the same, various photographs are produced to demonstrate that the units were started by the Society, and it is being carried on up to the expectation, and in accordance with the Scheme guidelines and the guidelines issued by NABARD and the Coffee Board. So also the Society has produced the Income Tax return from the year 2017-18 and up to 31.03.2020, and the profit and loss account, from where we could gather that continuous activities are taking place in the unit in question and the Society is running in a profit. 10. We have heard respective counsel across the Bar and perused the pleadings and material on record. 11. As discussed above, the grievance highlighted by the petitioner was that after securing the grant under the Scheme, loan from the NABARD, and grant from the Coffee Board, the 8th respondent Society had failed to start the Unit, thereby misusing the WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -9- financial benefits offered by the State, as well as Central Government Organizations, and it is thus seeking to conduct necessary enquiries and take action against the 8th respondent Society, the writ petition was filed. 12. However, along with the writ petition, no materials are produced in order to show that the Society had not started the Units in contemplation of the Scheme. Anyhow, the pleadings and the documents produced by the KINFRA, as well as the Coffee Board, makes it clear that the Society has put up necessary infrastructure for starting the Unit, in accordance with the Scheme guidelines, and it is functioning well. That apart, from the affidavit filed by the 8th respondent Society and the documents appended to it, including the undisputed photographs produced, show that the Unit was established and activities are taking place in the Units of the 8th respondent Society. Furthermore, the Income Tax returns from the year 2017-18 and up to 31.03.2020 are produced, from where we are satisfied that the income of the 8th respondent Society is an audited one, and the audit report and the balance sheet shows that the Society is running in a profit. It is also discernible from the photographs produced that WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -10- machineries and sufficient infrastructure are developed by the Society. Therefore, the bald contentions raised in the writ petition, without any supporting documents, show that the contentions and the allegations raised by the petitioner, have no foundation and basis, and therefore, the writ petition has no sustenance. 13. So also we find that the first relief sought for is seeking direction to respondents 1 to 4, i.e. Union of India, SLEPC, KINFRA and the Coffee Board, to take all necessary steps, to cancel the grant sanctioned to the Society under the Scheme, and recover the amounts disbursed to respondent No. 8, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The concerned nodal agency and the establishments which have released the scheme subsidy / grant/ loan in favour of the 8th respondent, have no case that the 8th respondent Society has not complied with or honoured its commitments, consequent to the funds sanctioned and distributed as per the Scheme and other required considerations. Moreover, it is quite clear and evident from the affidavit and the documents produced by the respondents that the case developed by the petitioner, is nothing but unfounded allegations, made without any aid and assistance of any documents and reliable WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -11- pleadings. Moreover it is significant to note that the establishments which have parted with money have no complaints against the society or that it has violated any terms and conditions of the scheme or guidelines of the funding agencies. In sum and substance the petitioner has not established any public interest to grant any reliefs as sought for. It is well settled in the realm of public interest litigations that the public interest litigant should approach the Constitutional court not only with clean hands but with a clean heart, soul, and mind. But in the case at hand, we won’t be uncharitable and unjustified in saying that the petitioner has failed even to establish the minimum basic requirements expected in a public interest writ petition. Therefore normally costs should have been followed by our findings but we refrain from doing so taking into consideration the adverse economic situations prevailing due to the Pandemic - COVID 19. 14. In that view of the matter, we also have no reason to think that the petitioner is entitled to get other consequential reliefs, in regard to enquiry to be conducted etc. on the basis of the alleged financial indiscipline of the 8th respondent. Which thus means, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference exercising WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -12- the power of judicial discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE Eb ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE WP(C).No.38322 OF 2015(S) -13- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT (PART- III) OF DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES DATED 3.11.2012. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2012. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WSSS.COF/OI/12 DATED 24.12.2012. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.EXT/BAN/2012-13/311 DATED 7.1.2013. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REF.NO.JDK/EXT/2012-13/710 DATE 8.1.2013. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.13/2/2012-STATE CELL DATED 13.3.2013. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.EXT/BAN/WSSS/50/2013-14/146 DATED 5.8.2013. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.10/18/2014-SC DATED 5.8.2014. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REF.NO.RTI & GRI/541/2014-15/219 DATED 22/24-09-2014. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT DATED 21.1.2015 PUBLISHED IN JANMA BHUMI DAILY. EXHIBIT P10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P10. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.12.2015. "