K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Satish Kumar, learned advocate, for Mr. P.M. Dave, learned advocate for respondent No.1 National Horticulture Board and Ms. Amin, learned advocate for respondent No.3 National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-

"7-B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or writ certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ order or direction to recall the action of the respondent no.1 of withdrawing the subsidy granted to the petitioner market committee as being illegal and further be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately released the whole amount of subsidy which was sanctioned to the petitioner market committee for the construction of the cold storage and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 24th January, 2014 communicated by respondent no.3 the decision of respondent no.1;"

3. The petitioner is Agriculture Produce Market Committee ["APMC" for short] and is aggrieved by action of the respondents of cancelling/withdrawing the subsidy granted to the petitioner as well as the action of recalling the amount already paid/released towards part-payment amount of the subsidy granted/approved to the petitioner.

3.1 From the material on record and facts of the case, it has emerged that the communication which triggered present proceedings and gave rise to this petition is the communication dated 24.1.2014 by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 whereby the respondent No.3 informed respondent No.4 that the respondent No.1 has issued instruction to recall the subsidy and the amount paid in advance to the petitioner under the subsidy and that therefore, the part-payment towards subsidy which is released should be returned to respondent No.3.

3.2 The petitioner has challenged the said communication.

4. For determination of the relief prayed for by the petitioner and the objection by respondent Nos.1 and 3, it is necessary to consider factual backdrop.

4.1 The petitioner APMC is constituted under Agriculture Produce Market Committee Act, 1963. It appears that the APMC intended to construct cold storage as part of its activities and in aid to its activities, which according to the petitioner APMC would help the agriculturists in Deesa region. It appears that a plan for storage was approved and necessary permission were granted. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for loan to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore from respondent No.4 Bank. The respondent No.4 bank, on completion of all formalities, sanctioned the loan. The respondent No.4 Bank granted the loan under agreement dated 24.3.2006. Said agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.4 Bank.

4.2 Under a scheme to provide subsidy, a proposal was prepared by the petitioner and submitted to the respondent No.3 for providing subsidy.

4.3 According to the petitioner, after completion of all formalities for approval of subsidy, the respondent No.1 approved and sanctioned subsidy to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs and 50% of the amount of the total subsidy came to be released by respondent No.1 through respondent No.3.

4.4 The respondent No.3 credited Rs. 25 Lakhs in petitioner's loan account with the respondent No.4 Bank. Differently put, the amount was paid directly to the respondent No.4 (and not to the petitioner APMC) by respondent No.3.

4.5 On release of said amount (Rs.25 Lakhs), the petitioner's obligation to repay loan reduced to that extent of Rs. 25 Lakhs.

4.6 The petitioner, however, claims that for the project, it incurred cost to the tune of about Rs. 4 Crores included price of land and cost of construction.

4.7 From the details mentioned in the petition and from the submissions by the respondents, it appears that somewhere in November 2008, the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 conducted site visit and inspection of the cold storage. The committee p