Haryana

StateCommission

A/208/2015

RAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DISTRICT HORTICULTURE OFFICER AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

GOPAL SHARMA

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.208 of 2015

Date of Institution: 12.02.2015 & 03.03.2015.

                                                          Date of Decision: 18.07.2016

 

Ran Singh son of Shri Sohan Singh resident of village Dharan, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1.      District Horticulture Officer, Rewari.

2.      Director, Haryana State Horticulture Board/Agency, Panchkula (Haryana).

3.      National, Horticulture Board, Gurgaon (Haryana) through Director of the Board.

4.      Member Secretary, State Medicinal Plant Board, Haryana (SMPBH) Van Bhawan, Sector 6 Panchkula, Haryana

5.      Chief Executive  Officer, National Medicinal Padam Board, 36, Chandralok Building Janpath, New Delhi.

6.      Manager, The Bawal Prathmik Sehkari Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Society, Bawal, District Rewari.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Siddarth Sharma, Advocate alongwith complainant in person.

Mr.Ramesh Kumar, AAG for respondent Nos.1,2 & 5 alongwith Ms.Pinki Yadav, DHO, Mr.Dharam Singh Director, Horticulture and Mr.Sunil Kumar, Stenographer.

Mr.Vishwajeet, Advocate counsel for respondent No.3.

                   None for respondent No.4.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that after going through advertisement about cultivation of medicinal plant and income derived from them,  he cultivated the same on four acres of land and cost was Rs.9,86,200/-, out of which Rs.3,88,500/- were to be paid as subsidy.  He deposited Rs.8600/- as share money with the bank and spent from his own sources for tubewell, fencing, pumping set, labour, plants etc.  Rs.2,90,000/- were advanced by the bank as of loan.  His project was forwarded to PLDB Bank vide letter No.205 dated 24.06.2004 and assured that Rs.3,88,500/- of subsidy would be deposited in the bank.  O.Ps. checked his project time and again and cleared the same. National Horticulture Board Gurgaon sent reply dated 22.08.2005 qua the same and asked him to send proper performa to  National Horticuture Board Chandigarh.  Vide letter No.342 dated 28.09.2005 it was told that his matter was referred to Chandigarh.  After waiting for some time he wrote letter dated 13.08.2005 to Prime Minister about subsidy.  On 28.12.2005 letter was received from National Horticulture Board Chandigarh to the effect that such like subsidy was provided by National Medicinal Padap Board New Delhi and not by them and the entire matter was referred to concerned officer of National Medicinal Development Board New Delhi vide letter dated 20.01.2006. When no reply was received he sent another letter dated 10.03.2006 to release subsidy.  He sent another letter dated 08.02.2007 to Prime Minister for release of subsidy.  Agriculture Ministry informed him that concerned department had been asked to look into the matter, but, even then no action was taken. He sent legal notice also, but, to no use.  O.Ps. be directed to give him Rs.3,88,500/- as of subsidy besides compensation for mental harassment etc as mentioned in the complaint.

2.      It was alleged by O.P. Nos.1 and 2 that complainant was not advised  by them in any manner about cultivation of medicinal plant. Their department was not providing any subsidy about medicinal plants and the same was being provided by National Medicinal Padap Board New Delhi. They were not concerned about any loan obtained by complainant from any source.  When complainant approached them, he was informed vide letter  No.1750 dated 12.03.2005 about the entire situation and that Horticulture department was not dealing with this subject.  He was also not covered by the definition of consumer.  Objections about estopple, misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, concealment of true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      It was alleged by O.P.No.4 that project of complainant was not registered in that office and the same was not concerned with it in any manner because this project was looked into by National Horticulture Board.  They were not having any information about  this project.

4.      It was alleged by O.P.No.6 that on 10.08.2004 complainant obtained loan of Rs.2,90,000/- for cultivation of medicinal plants.  It was supposed to provide loan only and was not concerned with subsidy in any manner.

5.      Opposite party Nos.3 and 5 were proceeded against ex parte.

6.      Initially complaint was dismissed by the then Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which impugned order dated 15.04.2010 which was  set aside by State Commission vide order dated 17.10.2011 and directed to decided the case on merits. Thereafter complaint No.356 of 2008 filed by the complainant before District Forum was dismissed on 07.01.2015.

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

8.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that after going through advertisement Ex.C-2, he decided to go for plantation of medicinal plants and for that purpose National Medicinal Padap Board, New Delhi was to give subsidy. He obtained loan of Rs.2,99,200/- from O.P.No.6 and spent remaining amount from his own pocket. He was entitled for the subsidy of Rs.3,88,500/- as mentioned above. When he applied for subsidy Horticulture Board asked him vide letter dated 22.08.2005 Ex.C-3 to submit the application to their NHB Office at Chandigarh. Thereafter he submitted his claim which was forwarded by the bank vide letter dated 15.09.2005, copy of which is Ex.C-6. Even thereafter, subsidy was not allowed and his case was rejected vide letter dated 28.12.2005, copy of which is Ex.C-37, whereas, he was entitled for that benefit. As per annexure 2 attached with Ex.C-6, it is clear that he moved application on 24.06.2004. His case was also forwarded by District Horticulture Officer, Rewrari on 24.04.2004 as mentioned in Ex.C-6. In  letter dated 12.09.2005, copy of which is Ex.C-36, it was nowhere mentioned that he was not entitled for subsidy rather it was mentioned therein that subsidy qua medicinal plants was to be sanctioned by National Medicinal Padap Board, New Delhi. As per report attached with letter Ex.C-6 he utilized the loan sanctioned by the bank, so he was entitled for subsidy.

10.    This argument cannot help complainant because the instructions are otherwise. Vide circular Nol. NHB/MC-50 (FUA)/2004 dated July,8 2004 system  of issuing  letter of indent (in short ‘LOI’) was introduced w.e.f. 01.08.2004. Relevant condition Nos. (i) to (v) are reproduced as under :

“(i)     Under the scheme, the entrepreneur/ promoter/ eligible applicant will make an application to NHB on a prescribed format about his intent to set up a unit/project.

(ii)      NHB will examine the application as per prescribed procedure and guidelines of the scheme and, if found prima facie eligible, MHB will issue a letter of Intent (LOI) to the applicant. The decision for grant of LOI shall be taken by the existing Committees of NHB, viz. IC & PAC as per their financial delegations.

(iii)     The LOI will be valid for one year from its date of issue. The promoter will accordingly approach the Bank/FI of his choice immediately after obtaining the LOI from NHB and get his term loan sanctioned by Bank/FI within the period of one year.

(iv)    The project will be implemented within a period of two years from the date of sanction of loan.

(v)     The new system of issuing Letter of Intent to applicants will come into effect from 01.08.2004. Cases in the pipelines will be dealt within according to the existing procedures.”

 

It shows that if a person has not obtained LOI than subsidy cannot be obtained. In the present case complainant applied for LOI on 13.07.2005, so it cannot be alleged that he is entitled for subsidy. Ex.C-5 and Annexure A2 of Ex.C-6 are pertaining to the application submitted with the bank for the loan. Vide Ex.C-5 his case was forwarded to PLDB, Bawal for necessary action. At that time, he had applied for loan and not for subsidy. His loan was sanctioned on 10.08.2004 i.e. after circular dated 08.07.2014.  So, he cannot derive any benefit of these dates. When there are specific instructions, Consumer Fora cannot ask any party to go against the same. Had he applied for subsidy before this circular than it could have been a different matter. After this circular he got loan facility and thereafter he applied for subsidy without LOI. Had he applied by 01.08.2004 then it could have been a different matter.  So, these arguments are of no avail. Learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no reason to interfere the impugned order. Resultantly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

July, 18, 2016     Urvashi Agnihotri                   R.K.Bishnoi                                      Member                                      Judicial Member                              Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                 

S.K.