The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for scrupulous adherence to the conditions for subsidy approval under the Horticulture Scheme, including obtaining prior approval for any deviations from the application details.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the Minutes of Serial No.1 of the Spot Agenda of the 33rd State Letter of Intent Committee [Tamil Nadu] of the National Horticulture Board on the file of the fourth respondent herein dated 13.11.2013 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to grant subsidy to the petitioners herein as recommended by the fifth respondent-Bank by its letters dated 05.02.2013 and 30.04.2013.)

1. The present writ petition has been instituted to quash the proceedings of the Minutes of of Serial No.1 of the Spot Agenda of the 33rd State Letter of Intent Committee [Tamil Nadu] of the National Horticulture Board on the file of the fourth respondent herein dated 13.11.2013 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to grant subsidy to the petitioners herein as recommended by the fifth respondent-Bank by its letters dated 05.02.2013 and 30.04.2013.

2. The writ petitioners admittedly submitted an application for Letter of Intent under the Scheme “Development of Commercial Horticulture through Production and Post Harvest Management” of National Horticulture Board. As per the Prospectus, a group of individuals or a legal person may apply for issue of Letter of Intent. Accordingly, all the three writ petitioners jointly submitted an application under the Scheme for the purpose of grant of subsidy. As per the Scheme, the petitioners availed loan from the Punjab National Bank and communicated the same to the respondents for the purpose of sanctioning the subsidy.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners mainly contended that as per the Prospectus issued under the Scheme, the Letter of Intent application with project cost upto Rs.50 lakhs may be sent to Center In-charge of the respective States and the petitioners have sent their application by following the procedures as contemplated. They have submitted their loan application before the Punjab National Bank jointly and the Bank for their convenience subsequently asked the writ petitioners to change as ''Partnership Firm'', which was done by the petitioners for the purpose of availing the bank loan.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners reiterated that the bank loan was sanctioned and the petitioners utilised the said bank loan for the purpose stated in the application and thereafter, approached the respondents for approving the Letter of Intent for grant of subsidy.

5. The petitioners have stated that they have not intended to convert individual loan application as ''Partnership Firm'' and at the instance of the Punjab National Bank, they have agreed for such conversion and therefore, they need not be deprived of their benefit of subsidy as per the Scheme.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners drew the attention of this Court with reference to the application submitted by the writ petitioners regarding sanctioning of loan and conversion of individual loan application as ''Partnership Firm'' and other procedures, which would reveal that the petitioners availed the bank loan for the purpose of developing the Horticulture Farm and therefore, the decision taken by the respondents denying the subsidy to the writ petitioners is arbitrary.

7. The reasons stated for rejection of subsidy to the writ petitioners are that Letter of Intent issued in favour of the individuals/writ petitioners. However the bank loan was availed in Partnership Firm i.e., ''Ekantham Garden''.

8. The State Committee, in its Minutes, has recorded that the documents submitted are differed for claim of subsidy and therefore, they are not eligible to avail the benefit of subsidy under the Scheme.

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners reiterated that by stating that the bank l