Back
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deesa – Appellant
Versus
National Horticulture Board – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The short question on which the present appeal turns is whether the appellant herein i.e., Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Deesa1[APMCD] is entitled to the subsidy given by the National Horticulture Board2[NHB] and operated by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development3[NABARD] titled as “Capital Investment Subsidy For Construction/Expansion/Modernization of Cold Storages/Storage of Horticultural Produce”. NABARD4[NB.Guj/ICD-GSS/2/NHM-191/2011-12 dated 18th May 2012 and ARDB 221 dated 8th June 2012] took a decision to withdraw from APMCD the subsidy granted and recover the amount already paid. NHB5[NHB/HO/NABARD/APMC DEESA CS//2018-19 dated 8th April 2019] found this decision to be justified. This determination was challenged before the learned Single Judge6[R/Special Civil Application 15592 of 2019 dated 19th January 2023] under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby these decisions were set aside holding the appellant to be entitled to the entire amount of subsidy. The Division Bench7[R/Letters Patent Appeal No.614 of 2024 dated 1st July 2024] in appeal disagreed and restored the findings of the lower autho
Administrative authorities must provide substantiated reasons for withdrawing subsidies, especially when an applicant's eligibility is uncontested.
The main legal point established is that the petitioner must meet the requirements of the new scheme and apply for subsidy as per the Operational Guidelines to be eligible for relief.
Subsidy claims under the Poultry Venture Capital Fund are contingent upon strict adherence to procedural guidelines; failure to comply negates entitlement, especially after scheme closure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a subsidy claim must adhere to the terms and provisions of the applicable scheme, and must not be arbitrary or contrary to co....
Matters of damages cannot be assessed in summary manner and require a full-fledged adjudication, which is not typically undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court confirmed that electrical installations essential for plant operations qualify for subsidy under the CCISS, rejecting previous misconceptions about their eligibility.
The court reaffirmed that procedural fairness and adherence to guidelines are essential in administrative actions related to subsidy eligibility, mandating a fresh hearing and review process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
