At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not giving credit of 25% of the capital cost subsidy in respect of loan account No.11247206329 on purchase of harvesting machinery ‘Class Crop Tiger (Track Model)’, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Petitioner No.1 is the son of petitioner No.2. On 25.09.2006, petitioner No.1 made an application for sanction of loan to respondent No.1 for purchase of a harvesting machine under the scheme for development/strengthening of agricultural marketing infrastructure, grading and standardisation evolved by the Government of India with respondent No.2 as its implementing agency. The scheme inter alia provides for 25% investment subsidy on the capital cost up to Rs.50 lakhs and in case of SC and ST farmers, the subsidy component is 33.33%. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners with respect to which there is no dispute that respondent No.1 Bank has processed the loan application treating the same as dated 01.11.2006 and vide its letter dated 17.11.2006, it has informed the petitioners that the loan of Rs.11.70 lakhs was sanctioned for purchasing the harvesting machinery. Petitioner No.2 has offered Ac.9.80 cents and Ac.11.17 cents as security for providing loan to petitioner No.1 and accordingly the said lands were mortgaged in favour of respondent No.1. Petitioner No.1 has deposited Rs.3 lakhs for sanction of loan. It is their pleaded case that attracted by the scheme of the investment subsidy to the extent of 25%, the petitioners have availed the loan and purchased the machinery. However, when respondent No.1 has not extended the subsidy to them and showed the closing balance as Rs.8.06,263=85ps on 10.06.2008, the petitioners have approached the former and have learnt from it that as per circular No.212/ACD/23/2006, dated 15.12.2006 of respondent No.2, the scheme of providing subsidy on capital cost was discontinued with effect from 14.11.2006 and that therefore the same is not available to them, as the loan was sanctioned subsequent to the discontinuance of the scheme. Feeling aggrieved by this action, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners.

4. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit, wherein he inter alia averred that in the meeting held on 14.11.2006, a decision was taken to stop subsidies to combine harvester projects till further orders, that the decision was made applicable with effect from the said date and that NABARD was requested to issue a circular in that regard. It is further averred that in a meeting held on 14.12.2007 to review the progress of the centrally sponsored schemes, the said scheme was revived only in selected States limiting it to 20% of the total projects and the State of Andhra Pradesh is not included among those selected States.

5. The main plank on which the Writ Petition is filed is that on the basis of the promise held out by respondent No.3, the petitioners have availed the loan and that by the time the loan was sanctioned, the purported decision of respondent No.3 was not communicated to any one including respondent No.1. The petitioners have therefore pleaded that the respondents cannot be permitted to go back on their promise on the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

6. It is not in dispute that the scheme for development/strengthening of agricultural marketing infrastructure, grading and standardisation was introduced by respondent No.3 in November, 2004 and was applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh when the petitioners made their application and also when loan was processed. It is also not in dispute that the said scheme provided for subsidy on capital cost to the extent of 25%. From the contents of the counter affidavit and the material filed in support thereof, it is evident that a decision appears to have been taken by respondent No.3 in a me