Kamlesh Kumar Surana, S/o. Lt. Mohanlal Surana vs Union Of India

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1586

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Kamlesh Kumar Surana, S/o. Lt. Mohanlal Surana – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)7823 of 2018
Decided on : 16-09-2025

Important Points

Beneficiaries cannot be deprived of subsidies due to delays by financial institutions; eligibility must be determined by the operational guidelines of the subsidy scheme without arbitrary cut-off dates that lack beneficiary notification.

Subject

Administrative Law - Public Subsidy Claims

Headnote

(A) Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Scheme - Operational Guidelines - Eligibility for subsidy - The Court found that the petitioner was eligible for subsidy under the ISAM as per directives of the Operational Guidelines which did not specify a cut-off date for those projects sanctioned under the previous guidelines. Lapses on the part of the financial institution (Respondent No.7) cannot penalize the petitioner. The subsidy amount of Rs.16,03,800/- ordered to be released to the petitioner. (Paras 33-48)

(B) Time Schedule for Submission - The Court emphasized that delays by financial institutions should not affect beneficiaries’ rights. Though a cut-off date was communicated, beneficiaries were not informed, which is a procedural lapse. (Paras 37-43)

(C) Right to Relief - The Court affirmed that a beneficiary should not be deprived of a subsidy entitlement due to the financial institution's delays; actions preventing subsidy disbursement rely on communication failures, not on the minority's eligibility. (Paras 45-48)

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Sancheti, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Paul, Advocate, Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate, Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, CGC

Table of Content
1. background of the agricultural marketing infrastructure scheme (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments by respondents regarding subsidy eligibility (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. court's analysis of eligibility criteria and obligations of financial institutions (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
4. entitlement to subsidy despite lapses by the financial institution (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
5. court's directive on disbursement of subsidy to petitioner (Para 48)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S. Sancheti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Sishir Dutta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Paul, appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. I have also heard Mr. Subrata Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7 and Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The Respondent No.1 through the Respondent No.2 announced a Scheme in the name and style of “Integrated Scheme of Agricultural Marketing”, (for short ‘ISAM’) wherein all schemes relating to agriculture, marketing and infrastructure were brought under one umbrella for strengthening of the agricultural sector. The ISAM was divided into five different sub-schemes which were (i) Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure (AMI) [merging existing scheme of Grameen Bhandaran Yojana (GBY) and Development/strengthening of Agriculture Marketing Infrastructure Grading and Standardization (AMIGS)]; (ii) Marketing Research and Information Network (MRIN); (iii) Strengthening of Agmark Grading Facilities (SAGF); (iv) Agri-Business Development Facility (PDF) and (v) Choudhary Charan Singh National Institute of Agriculture Marketing (NIAM).

3. The Respondent No. 3 merged the Scheme for development /strengthening of Agriculture Marketing Infrastructure Grading and Standardization (AMIGS) and Grameen Bhandaran Yojana (GBY) into one Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure (AMI) under which necessary Operational Guidelines, 2014 were also issued. In that regard, the Respondent No.5 issued a Circular No.71/DoR 22/2014 under Reference No. NB.DoR.GSS/394/AMI-1/2014-15 dated 25.04.2014 intimating to all schedule commercial banks/all schedule (Primary) Urban Cooperative banks, all RRBs/ADFCs/SCBs/SCARDB’s regarding the guidelines.

4. The Petitioner who had a plot of land admeasuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 18 Lechas covered by Dag No. 743 of P. P. Patta No. 345 of village Hirapara, Mouza Shyambari, Dhula, District Darrang, Assam, being encouraged intended to set up a rural godown at village Hirapara under the ISAM and accordingly, the Petitioner approached the Respondent No.7 for availing a term loan which was sanctioned by the Respondent No.7 vide the letter No. CB/AMT-I/2016-17/345A dated 11.11.2016 wherein the Petitioner's application for term loan amounting to Rs.80,00,000/- was duly sanctioned for setting up a rural godown at village Hirapara, Mouza Shyambari, Dhula, District Darrang at a total cost of Rs.1,20,00,000/-.

5. The Petitioner received the first installment/disbursement of the loan on 29.12.2016. To the information of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.7 applied for release of the advance subsidy to the Respondent No.6 with all the required documents on 28.03.2017 i.e. within 90 days from the date of release of the first installment as per Clause 3.10.1 of the Operational Guidelines. The Petitioner further mentioned in the writ petition that the Respondent No.7 received the advance subsidy on 25.10.2017 from the Respondent No.6 vide letter dated 25.10.2017 being an amount of Rs.16,03,800/- which is 50% of the entire subsidy amount for and on behalf of the Petitioner which was kept in a separate subsidy reverse fund account being Account No.30074246297 maintained by Respondent No.7 in its South Guwahati Branch.

6. It is the further case of