- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred for a direction upon the respondents to provide subsidy to the petitioner under Interest Subsidy Scheme,1993, as the respondents have provided the benefit of the Interest Subsidy Scheme,1990 only vide their communication dated 21.9.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a riot affected victim of 1984 riot and has taken a loan from the respondent Syndicate Bank and as per the Interest Subsidy Scheme brought by the respondents, the petitioner was entitled to subsidy. It has further been stated that after Interest Subsidy Scheme, 1990, Interest Subsidy Scheme,1993 was also introduced, which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the revised Subsidy Scheme,1993 the petitioner was entitled to further reduced rate of 1% simple interest as subsidy. However, the loan amount to the petitioner was processed under the Interest Subsidy Scheme 1990 and excess amount of Rs.99,740/- was credited in his ODH Account No.2/90 on 21.9.1994 i.e. after the coming into force of Interest Subsidy Scheme,1993 denying the benefit of reduced subsidy.
(3.) THE respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit wherein it has been categorically stated that the Central Interest Subsidy Scheme,1993 remained into force upto March,1995 and the petitioner had been granted the benefit of interest subsidy scheme in September,1994 itself and thereafter he did not approach to the Bank to submit any claim. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner was forwarded to the head office for realization of the amoiunt of Rs.99,740/- and the petitioner accepted the same in the year 1994 itself after closure of the scheme in March,1995. For the first time the petitioner represented before the Reserve Bank of India wherein the respondent-Bank was asked to look into the claim of the petitioner on his representation and the same was looked into and relying upon the letter dated 11.4.2002 as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit, it is stated that subsidy amount of Rs.99,740/- was already credited in ODS Account No.2/90 of M/s Raja Tyres on 21.9.1994 and was duly intimated about the subsidy available to him by Dhanbad Branch. The respondents further submits that after 21.9.1994 the loan account has been closed and at this belated stage there cannot be any question of further refund, as the scheme itself was closed in 1995 itself. From the aforesaid fact and after hearing the parties and going through the records, it is apparent that the loan account of the petitioner was processed and refund of Rs.99,740/- was granted to him and was credited in the petitioner's account on 21.9.1994. Thereafter the loan account of the petitioner was closed and scheme itself lapsed in 1995 itself and it is not permissible to reopen such financial transaction after considerable lapse of period. The petitioner did not challeng the same, if he was aggrieved by non-grant of benefit under Interest Subsidy Scheme,1993 within a reasonable time, rather he moved this Court after about nine years of the amount being credited in his account.;