Shri. K. Rangaiah Chettiyar v. The Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/665/2023 Shri K Rangaiah Chettiyar Vs.

The Union of India and others Mr. K M B Jayapal Mr. C.Mano .... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivvedi .... for the respondents April 10, 2024 [SR] Item No.15 The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent authority to take effective steps to release appropriate fund in favour of the petitioner under Rajiv Gandhi Rehabilitation Package to Tsunami affected area.

Learned advocate for the petitioner draws the attention to the Court to the order dated December 08, 2010 passed in WP/1436/2010 and to the order dated February 02, 2012 passed in WP/911/2011. He submits that, despite such orders of the High Court, requiring the authorities to examine the issue, no amount was paid to the petitioner. He also draws the attention of the Court to the writing dated May 23, 2012 issued by the Office of the Development Commissioner, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises as also the writing dated July 17, 2012 of the Joint Secretary & Director of Industries of the Administration where, the Administration quantified the sum of Rs.2,38,472/- as the amount to be released directly to the ANIIDCO under intimation to the Administration.

Learned advocate for the Administration submits that, the scheme spoken of by petitioner consists of two portions. The scheme divided outstanding loan amount between Rs.1 to 2 lakhs where, complete waiver was requested to be done. In respect of the loan of Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs, normal interest of the outstanding principal

amount as on December 26, 2004 was required to be waived of or three years. No penal interests were required to be waived. He submits that, in terms of such scheme, petitioner was granted benefit of Rs.29,268/- as the outstanding loan amount on account of the petitioner as on December 26, 2004 was Rs.2,38,472/-. Therefore, according to him, petitioner received the full benefit under the scheme. Petitioner is not entitled to any further benefit. Petitioner claims, itself to be entitled to the benefits of the scheme named as Rajiv Gandhi Rehabilitation Package to Tsunami affected area, and being given the benefits thereunder. Such scheme comprises of two components.

First component is waiver of interest for the sum outstanding as on December 26, 2004 in respect of loan upto Rs.2.00 lakhs. The second component deals with loan between Rs.2.00 to 5.00 lakhs where normal interest of the outstanding principal amount as on December 26, 2004 was directed to be waived for three years. Loan outstanding as on December 26, 2004 in respect of the petitioner was a sum of Rs.2,38, 472/-. Therefore, the petitioner fell under the second component of the Scheme. Benefit under the second component of the scheme was extended to the petitioner and the petitioner received the same as will appear from the statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition.

Thereafter, petitioner approached the different fora including the Lok Adalat claiming that the petitioner was entitled to further compensation in terms of such scheme.

In my view, petitioner received his entitlement under the scheme since, the loan outstanding on account of the petitioner as on December 26, 2004 was in excess of Rs.2.00 lakhs. The letters on which the petitioner relies upon i.e the letter dated May 23, 2012 of the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises,

Govt. of India requires sympathetic consideration of the waiver of the loan amount of Rs.2,38,472/. The letter dated July 17, 2012 requires the Administration to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically to waive of the loan amount.

The scheme which the petitioner relies upon does not envisage waiver of the loan amount of its entirety for a loan outstanding between Rs.2.00 to Rs.5.00 lakhs as on December 26, 2004. Admittedly as on that date, the loan outstanding on the account of the petitioner was Rs.2,38,472/-.

In such circumstances, I find no merits in the present writ petition.

WPA/665/2023 is dismissed without any order as to costs. ( Debangsu Basak, J. )