Point of Law : State Government having not collaborated with the Scheme, the RPS and the Rubber Board agreed that the RPS shall be the Associating Agency and for the various documents enclosed to the affidavit in reply, it appears that the Rubber Board authorities nowhere disputes the payment of 40% subsidy to the RPS.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Md. JU Ahmed, learned counsel. Also heard Ms. A Gayan, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. D Nath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 and Ms. S Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860. The grievance of the petitioner is as regards the entitlement of its members in terms with not granting the subsidy to the members of the petitioners in terms with the scheme as notified by the Rubber Board vide Reference No.ARPC/GTY/34(b)/2014-2015 dated 08.07.2014.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the 12th plan scheme there is a component for Tribal Development planting which is a special programme for Economic Rehabilitation of Tribal People with 90% assistance. The said programme was scheduled to be implemented with the assistance of the respective State Governments Beneficiaries and the Rubber Board in the sharing pattern of the Rubber Board share being 40%, the State Government share being 50% and the beneficiary’s contribution being 10%. In this regard the bone of contention pertaining to the instant matter relates to the entitlement of the scheme of the subsidy. It is relevant to quote the pertinent portion of the said scheme as notified vide the circular dated 08.07.2014 which is herein under:

“In this connection, it is brought to the attention that the total cost of making of Tribal Planting as per the scheme is costing Rs.5,11,500 per ha. The 40% of the cost the Rubber Board intends to spend is Rs.2,04,600 per ha. The total costing is inclusive of additional staff and other administrative expenditures.

For North East costing of 1 ha planting by individual growers is approved as Rs.2,14,500 only excluding administrative costs.

A target of 1800 ha is fixed for the scheme for the NE with a costing of rs.17.00 crore.”

4. A further perusal of the said scheme as notified vide the circular dated 08.07.2014 stipulates the various suggestions for implementation of the scheme by utilising own resources and personal were made. Relevant for the purpose of the instant dispute is clause 2 which stipulates that the 40% share may be permitted to expend in the scheme for planting materials, boundary protection, planting and soil conservation, fertilizer/plant protection etc. The maintenance cost will be met by the beneficiaries and the beneficiaries who are willing to offer all the required labour for the maintenance part will only be selected. It has also been mentioned that wherever the State assistance is not available, the Tribal Rubber Plantation scheme should be permitted to be implemented.

5. The case of the petitioner further is that in terms with the Scheme, a set of rules were framed and it is relevant to take note of the definition of the associating agency which stipulates to mean any Central/State Government Departments/agencies/NGOs/ companies/ financial institutions (National/international) approved by the Rubber Board who are willing to associate with the project with financial support. Clause V(4) which relates to the mode of operation stipulating therein that the scheme will be operated in a collaborative project mode by the Rubber Board, respective associating agencies and beneficiaries with the fund sharing of 40:50:10 in which the beneficiary contribution is only by way of the labour. Clause V(5) of the said set of Rules further stipulates that for operational efficiency, the Rubber Board and the concerned associating agency will enter into an MOU defining terms and the scope of cooperation before undertaking the project. The MOU shall cover apportioning of the additional cost due to the possible extension of immature phase and possible general increase in wages and material cost. The MOU shall also include a contingency head that can be used in the case of unexpected expenses. At this st