The petitioner's acceptance of the sanctioned grant without protest indicated awareness of the sanctioned amount, leading to the dismissal of the claim for the balance grant.

JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2. And also heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel appearing for proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4.

2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to release balance grant-in-aid of Rs. 10.62 lakh. In this writ petition, the case projected by the petitioner that the Govt. of India had formulated a scheme for technology up-gradation/establishment/modernization of food proceeding industries to cover for setting-up/expansion/modernization of food processing industries covering all segments, viz. fruits and vegetables, milk products, meat, poultry, fishery, oil seeds and such other agri-horticultural sectors leading to value addition and self-life enhancement including food flavors and colours, oleoresins, spices, coconut, mushroom, hops, etc. It was envisaged that such industries would be eligible for financial assistance in the form of grant, subject to 25% of the investment in (i) plant and machinery, and (ii) technical civil works, subject to a maximum of Rs. 50.00 lakh in "General Areas" and 33.33% upto Rs. 75.00 lakh in "Difficult Areas." Accordingly, vide letter dated 17.03.2004, the petitioner had applied for grant before the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Govt. of India (hereinafter referred to as "MoFPI" for short) by projecting that they were going to set up a 38 MT. Roller Flour Mill at the total project cost of Rs. 94.00 lakh for which they had taken term loan assistance of Rs. 28.00 lakh from the State Bank of India (proforma respondents No. 3 and 4). Thus, the petitioner had set up a Food Processing Industry to manufacture atta, maida, suji, bran, etc.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the Industry of the petitioner fell within "Difficult Area" the petitioner was eligible for financial grant to the extent of 33.33% of its investment in plant and machinery, and technical civil works. It is submitted that as the total investment of the petitioner to set up the industry was Rs. 116.31 lakh, the amount of grant on eligible items was Rs. 22.99 lakh. It is submitted that the Addl. Director (F.P.) Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Assam had carried out the physical verification and inspection of the industry of the petitioner and vide letter dated 25.03.2004, forwarded the proposal submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Industries and Commerce Department, for grant from Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Govt. of India. Accordingly, by an Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2007, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India had circulated the Minutes of Meeting of PAC (3rd of 2007-08) held on 13.07.2007, inter-alia, indicating the summary of the projects pending with MoFPI prior to 01.04.2007 and transferred to Banks for disbursement of grant. It is submitted that the MoFPI had found the petitioner to be eligible for grant of Rs. 17.24 lakh. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 15.10.2007, the MoFPI had informed the State Bank of India, Tinisukia Branch, that there was decentralization of schemes and disbursal of grants to Food Processing Units during the 11th Plan and for transferring of pending cases received during 10th Plan for disbursement of grants to eligible units and accordingly, the relevant documents were sent to the proforma respondents (i.e. SBI) with a direction to inspect the unit along with State Nodal Agency to ensure that the units had physically come up with all the plant and machinery installed, technical civil works completed and ready for commercial production.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Bank of India had sought clarification from the MoFPI as to whether the eligible grant to the petitioner s