High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/2484/2016dismissed

Rajinder Singh v. The Punjab Khadi & Village Industries Board Chd And ANR

2016-02-08Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

VINOD KUMAR 2016.02.11 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2484 of 2016 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.2484 of 2016 Date of decision:08.02.2016 Rajinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Punjab Khadi & Village Industries Board and another ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. J.C.Batra, Advocate, and Ms. Gitika, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 08.12.2015. It is submitted that since the application for subsidy was filed before it was sanctioned on 28.08.2008, therefore, the closure of the scheme in the month of March, 2008 would not affect the case of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no error in the impugned order, which reads as under:- "With reference to your letter on the above subject, you are hereby informed that according to the report received from the office of District Office that your case was sent to Central Cooperative Bank Ropar vide letter dated 05.10.2007 and it was stated in that letter that this case will be valid upto three months i.e. upto 04.01.2008. No application was received for the

VINOD KUMAR 2016.02.11 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2484 of 2016 [ 2 ] ***** extension of this period. Neither the bank or you have informed the District office regarding the sanction of the case or for making the payment in this respect. Now it has come to the notice through the District office that your case was sanctioned by the Bank on 28.08.2008 and an amount of Rs.6 lac was released on 23.09.2009. The party was also to undergo the training of EGP within three months from the release of first installment and registration fee worth 1% was also to be deposited. This scheme (REGP) has been closed in March, 2008 and therefore, your case cannot be considered now."

The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the scheme which had already been closed when his case was sanctioned. In view of the above, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit.

February 08, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge