- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 9-4-2002 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the demand notice/letter dtd. 23-3-2001 (Annex. 12) by which demand was raised by the respondent No.2 (Branch Manager, RFC, Rajsamand) stating that due to oversight mistake interest at the rate of 19.5% was charged, but as per the documents, interest should have been charged @20.5% and the petitioner-firm was directed to deposit the overdues upto 31-3-2001 and the order/letter dtd. 4-5-2001 (Annex. 14) issued by the respondent No.2 (Branch Manager) by FV/GV/R99/2004/GSD-VNP/USA/24415/2004 which demand of Rs.2,18,945/- as overdues as on 30-4-2001 be quashed and set aside and further the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the Interest Reduction Scheme (IRS) afresh and the respondents be further directed to execute necessary documents for applying reduced rate of interest of 15.5% p.a. with the petitioner and further it may be held that the petitioner was liable to pay interest @19.5% p.a. only.
(2.) The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (i) That the petitioner set up a unit for marble cutting and processing by installation of a Gangsaw machine and commenced commercial production on 1-6-1997. (ii) Further case of the petitioner is that petitioner was sanctioned a term loan by respondent RFC to the extent of Rs. 56 lacs vide sanction letter dt. 12-12-1996 (Annex. 1) and the loan agreement (Annex. 1) was executed on 6-2-1997 and a token first disbursement cheque of Rs.5,000/- was also given on that day. (ii) Further case of the petitioner is that cut off limit for Small Scale Industries Sector was Rs. 60 lacs which was raised to Rs. 3 crores w.e.f. 10-12-1997 vide gazette notification (Annex. 2). (iv) Further case of the petitioner is that in the provisional registration certificate (Annex. 3) issued by the Dist. Industries Centre, Rajsamand the category of the petitioner unit was shown as SSI and even in permanent registration certificate dtd. 22-8-1997 (Annex. 4), the category of the petitioner unit was shown as SSI. (v) Further case of the petitioner is permanent registration certificate dt. 28-3-2001 (Annex. 5) clearly reveals that for the period from 1-6-1997 to 10-12-1997, the petitioner - unit was not in the category of SSI, but w.e.f. 11-12-1997, it has come in the category of SSI and therefore, the petitioner unit after 11-12-1997 should be treated as SSI unit. (vi) Further case of the petitioner is that rate of interest applicable on the term loan given by RFC was 20.5% p.a. For medium scale industries (MSI) and 19.5% p.a. for small scale industries (SSI). (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that between the period from 1-6-1997 to 10-12-1997, the petitioner - unit was not in the category of SSI and though in the sanction letter dtd. 12-12-1996 {Annex. 1) and loan agreement (Annex. 1) the rate of interest was shown as 20.5%, but the fact is that the respondent charged interest @ 19.5% p.a. from the petitioner - unit treating the petitioner - unit as SSI unit as is evident from letter dtd. 25-3-2000 (Annex. 6). (viii) Further case of the petitioner is that interest @19.5% was charged by the respondents consciously by the respondents and not by mistake and the same was being paid by the petitioner. (ix) Further case of petitioner is that respondents issued a Scheme (Annex.8) known as Interest Reduction Scheme (IRS) and the persons concerned could get registered under that Scheme upto 31-1-2001. (x) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied under the said Scheme through application dtd. 1-1-2001 (Annex.9) and the petitioner paid the premium amount vide receipt dtd. 27-2-2001 (Annex. 10). (xi) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 (Branch Manager) through letter dtd. 15-1-2001 (Annex.11) informed the petitioner that since there were over-dues against the petitioner, the benefit of IRS was not available to it and if the petitioner firm wanted the benefit of IRS, it had to deposit overdues of Rs. 1,50,529/-. (xii) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter the impugned letter dtd. 23-3-2001 (Annex. 12) was issued by the respondent No.2 (Branch Manager) to the petitioner - firm stating that due to oversight mistake in the account of the petitioner - firm, loan account of the petitioner - firm was being maintained @ 19.50% interest p.a., whereas interest should have been charged @20.50% per annum and therefore, the petitioner firm was advised to pay overdues upto 31 -3-2001 and if the overdues were not paid, the benefit of IRS (Annex. 8) would not be applicable to the petitioner. (xiii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner - firm submitted a representation (Annex. 13) on 30-3-2001 to the respondents to decide its application under the IRS (Annex. 8). (xiv) Further case of the petitioner is that through letter dtd. 4-5-2001 (Annex. 14), respondent No.2 (Branch Manager) informed the petitioner that since rate of interest in the case of petitioner was @20.50% p.a., therefore, difference amount between the rate of 19.5% and 20.5% be deposited which comes to Rs. 2,18,945/-. (xv) In this writ petition, letters dtd. 23-3-2001 and 4-5-2001 (Annex. 12 and 14) have been challenged by the petitioner.
(3.) In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondents were not justified in denying benefit of IRS (Annex. 8) to the petitioner and when the interest was being charged consciously at the rate of Rs. 19.5%. the case of the respondents that it was charged by mistake is wrong one especially when w.e.f. 10-12-1997, the petitioner firm came under the category of SSI and therefore, treating the petitioner firm in the category of MSI is wrong and arbitrary and hence this writ petition should be allowed.;