RAVINDRA v. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ
Legal Reasoning
2144.24wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2144 OF 2024Shreya Patil Agro Producer Company Ltd.,Through its DirectorDevidas Babasaheb Dhupe,Age: 40 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o. Pangarkheda, Tq. Ambad,Dist. Jalna ….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Agricultural and Marketing Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-322.The Project Director,Nanaji Deshmukh Krushi Sanjeevani Prakalpa, Mumbai, 30, Arcade, World Trade Center,Cuff Parade, Mumbai-400 0053.The Assistant Project Director,Nanaji Deshmukh Krushi Sanjeevani Prakalpa, Mumbai, 30, Arcade, World Trade Center,Cuff Parade, Mumbai-400 0054.The District SuperintendentAgriculture Officer, Jalna,Dist. Jalna5.The Project Director,Nanaji Deshmukh Krushi Sanjeevani Prakalpa, ATMA, Jalna ….RESPONDENTS …. 2144.24wp(2) Mr Narendra D. Sonavane, Advocate for PetitionerMr S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos1 & 4. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 26th August, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by consent of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner andthe learned A.G.P. for the State Authorities.2.The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (A) and(B), which read as under :-“A)Quash and set aside the letter/order dt. 31.1.2024issued by respondent no. 2 and issue writ of mandamus orwrit in the nature of direction to the respondent no. 2 toreconsider the case of the petitioner in view of applicationdt. 10.1.2024 by granting opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner.B)Issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature ofdirections to the respondent no. 2 to grant opportunity tocorrect the date of incorporation of the company on theportal as granted in the case of other companies and toconsider the prayer of the petitioner for release of grant.”
Legal Reasoning
2144.24wp(3) 3.We have perused the Petition paper-book in the lightof the submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioners andthe learned A.G.P. on behalf of the Respondents/State Authorities.4.The prayers put forth by the Petitioner are vehementlyopposed by the learned A.G.P. in the light of the affidavit-in-replyfiled by Shri. Jitendra Pandurang Shinde, Project Director of theAgriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA).5.We find that the issue narrows down to, as to whetherthe Petitioner tendered false information with regard to it’scandidature for seeking benefits of the Nanaji Deshmukh KrushiSanjeevani Prakalp (for short ‘NDKSP’) or as to whether a simplemistake was committed by the Petitioner in entering an incorrectdate of a document, in the Application Form. 6.The Petitioner had applied on 18/08/2022, for seekingbenefits of the NDKSP. The Petitioner purchased agriculturalequipment of Rs.19,67,000/-. The said scheme funds agriculturalmachinery of the agriculturists on rent basis and 50% grant forconstruction of shed, as well as for purchase of agricultureequipments. The Petitioner received the pre-sanction letter on 2144.24wp(4) 19/07/2022 and also received the ‘Start Work Order’, on25/09/2022. 7.It is undisputed that the Applicant has to form aCompany under the Companies Act and a registration(Incorporation) has to be acquired before the Application can bemade. It is undisputed that the Petitioner’s Company wasincorporated on 02/02/2022, which is evident from the certificateof Incorporation issued by the Assistant Registrar of theCompanies pursuant to Sub-section (2) of Section 7 and Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 18of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014. 8.The certificate clearly indicates that the Petitioner’sCompany is incorporated on 2nd Day of February, 2022 and theCompany is limited by shares. The Corporate Identity Number ofthe Company is also mentioned in the Certificate of Incorporation,besides the Permanent Account Number (PAN), as well as the TaxDeduction and Collection Account Number (TAN). 9.The crux of the matter is that, in the Application dated21/05/2022, while typing the details in the online form, the date of 2144.24wp(5) the incorporation was mistakenly mentioned as 11/05/2022instead of 02/02/2022. The pre-sanction letter has been receivedby the Petitioner on 19/07/2024. As such, the nucleus of thisaspect is that, the Petitioner’s Company must have had acertificate of Incorporation, either on the date of pre-sanction, oron the date of the application. Even if the mistaken date isconsidered, the same is prior to the date of the pre-sanction letter,as well as before granting the Start Work Order letter, which isdated 25/09/2022. Had the Certificate of Incorporation beenissued after the pre-sanction letter or after the Start Work Order, itwould have amounted to a fraud played by the Petitioner. 10.We have perused the short impugned order dated31/01/2024, by which, the Assistant Project D irector, NDKSPconveyed to the Under Secretary (8-A), Agricultural and AnimalHusbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, that thePetitioner has stated false information and produced bogusdocuments. 11.We are not adverting to four letters written by somePeoples’ representatives addressed to the Additional Project
Decision
2144.24wp(6) Director of the NDKSP. What is relevant is that the AssistantProject Director has cancelled the Start Work Order granted to thePetitioner on the ground that the Petitioner had tendered falseinformation and documents ([kksVh ekfgrh o dkxni+=ss). Thisconclusion itself is unsustainable because the impugned orderdoes not indicate a single false document uploaded by thePetitioner on the FPO-DBD-Portal. So also, there is no referenceto any such information, uploaded on the said Portal by thePetitioner, to be construed as false information. The Petitionerhad uploaded the Certificate of Incorporation, which alone wasenough for the Authorities to consider that the Petitioner doeshave a Certificate of Incorporation. A wrong date punched in theonline form would only indicate that a mistake has occurred whilefilling in the said online application and verification of all thedocuments. The Start Work Order was also issued to thePetitioner.12.In view of the above, we do not find that theimpugned order could be sustained. If the strenuous contentionsof the learned A.G.P. to be accepted, we would have to adopt a 2144.24wp(7) pedantic approach. The appropriate words to be used in theimpugned order would have been ‘incorrect date’, instead of‘false information’.13.As such, this Writ Petition is allowed. Theimpugned order dated 31/01/2024, is quashed and set aside. Thepre-sanction letter dated 19/07/2022 and the Start Work Orderdated 25/09/2022, are sustained. Correction be carried out in thesaid Online Form accordingly.14.Since there is no other objection against the Petitionerand in the light of this judgment, we direct the concernedAuthorities to initiate steps for granting funds to the Petitioner byfollowing the due procedure applicable and subject to thecompliance of the Project guidelines, modified as per theCorrigendum dated 23/08/2022. 15.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)sjk