Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 5301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
M. Selvam – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation – Respondent
W.P. No. 31791 of 2025
Decided On : 11-12-2025
For the Appellant : P. Sathish
For the Respondents: C.A. Ashok Kumar, V. Jeevagiridharan, C. Mohan, A. Rexy Josephine Mary
Citizens have a legitimate expectation based on state promises, and procedural non-compliance should not arbitrarily deny entitled benefits.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Act - G.O.No.113, ADW, dated 24.11.2020 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus sought for quashing the denial of tractor loan subsidy - Petitioner selected under TAHDCO’s Entrepreneur Development Programme but subsidy withheld due to alleged non-compliance with procedural guidelines. (Para 11).
(B) Legal principles regarding legitimate expectation and non-arbitrariness affirmed - Citizens have a right to plan their affairs based on state promises. (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, applied for a tractor loan subsidy and was selected; however, subsidy was denied post-purchase of the tractor. (Paras 2-3).
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is eligible for the subsidy; the denial is unreasonable given the circumstances. (Para 12).
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s entitlement to subsidy is negated by the timing of the tractor purchase.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the procedural requirement did not categorically disallow grant of the subsidy even if the tractor was purchased before disbursement. (Paras 10-12).
Result: Petition allowed; respondents ordered to release the subsidy amount. (Para 13)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's grievance regarding loan subsidy (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents' arguments on subsidy eligibility (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on subsidy entitlement (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's final order on the subsidy release (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
1. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.A1/001/2025, dated 11.06.2025 and consequently, direct the first respondent to forthwith grant Tractor TAHDCO loan subsidy amount of Rs.2,25,000/- to the petitioner in terms of Na.Ka.No.TAHDCO-2023-24-EDP-TV-72, dated 11.10.2023.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He applied for a loan facility under Tamil Nadu Adi-Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation (in short “TAHDCO”), Entrepreneur Development Programme (EDP) for the year 2023-2024. Under the scheme, he is fully qualified for the subsidized Tractor loan. Accordingly, on application of the petitioner, an interview letter dated 11.09.2023 was issued to the petitioner to appear before the District Level Selection Committee along with relevant documents on 15.09.2023. The petitioner appeared before the District Level Selection Committee with all the relevant documents. The petitioner was selected for the Tractor Loan Subsidy after considering the merits of his application. The petitioner received the copy of the recommendation letter, dated 11.10.2023, sent by the third respondent, namely, the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi~Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation to the fourth respondent/bank to submit Sanction Order (Form III) and as per the letter, the fourth respondent forwarded the sanction order to the third respondent on 30.11.2023. The third respondent inspected the tractor and its documents physically and thereafter, the petitioner purchased the tractor and intimated to the third respondent on 01.11.2023. However, the subsidy amount was not paid to the petitioner and when the petitioner enquired with the third respondent, it was informed to the petitioner that still the Government has not allocated the funds and advised the petitioner to approach TAHDCO head office. In this regard, the petitioner sent a representation on 20.05.2025 and the petitioner was informed by the third respondent that tractor subsidy amount has been temporarily withheld across Tamil Nadu. The third respondent also sent a reply on 11.06.2025 stating that the subsidy could not be released due to violation of TAHDCO rules for administrative reasons. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
3. The learned Standing counsel for Respondents 1 and 3 submitted that as per the current scheme, that is framed, vide G.O.No.113, ADW, dated 24.11.2020, the subsidy is a front end subsidy. At the outset, the subsidy had to be provided and along with the subsidy amount, the bank should have granted the loan for the balance amount and thereafter, the tractor ought to have been purchased. In this case, even before release of subsidy, the petitioner has purchased the tractor and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for release of subsidy.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions, that are made in the affidavit and also took the Court through various documents, that are filed in support of the writ petition.
5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 pointing out the counter affidavit and the Government Order, would submit that the subsidy has rightly been denied in this case.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. In this case, the scheme is framed vide G.O.No. 113 ADW dated24.11.2020. Paragraph No.7 of the said Government Order reads as follows:-
8. Further, the following paragraph of the said Government Order also contains the manner, in which the subsidy will be released.
9. Ther
