Subsidy claims under the Poultry Venture Capital Fund are contingent upon strict adherence to procedural guidelines; failure to comply negates entitlement, especially after scheme closure.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, assails the letter/order dated 11.01.2021 issued by Opposite Party No. 1 and seeks a direction to Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 for release of the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,12,000/-, stated to be payable under the Poultry Venture Capital Fund Subsidy Scheme, along with interest accrued thereon.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is an agricultural farmer who, being motivated by the Poultry Venture Capital Fund Subsidy Scheme floated by NABARD in the year 2011 for economic upliftment of poor farmers in rural areas, sought to establish a commercial poultry unit.

(ii) Upon approval of the project, a loan of Rs. 3,01,320/- was sanctioned in his favour by the Balasore-Bhadrak Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 19.07.2012, against a total project cost of Rs. 4,72,229/-, the remaining amount being invested by the petitioner from his own sources. The loan was repayable in 20 quarterly instalments over a period of five years. Under the Scheme, the petitioner was entitled to a subsidy of Rs. 1,12,000/- from Opposite Party No. 1, to be claimed by the financing bank after release of the first instalment of the loan. Although the loan was sanctioned on 19.02.2012 and the first instalment was released on 30.11.2012, the subsidy claim was submitted by the financing bank only on 04.11.2016, after closure of the petitioner’s loan account on 14.06.2016.

(iii) After availing the loan, the petitioner repaid the same and, upon clearance of the entire loan amount, his loan account was closed by the financing bank on 14.06.2016.

(iv) Under the Scheme, the subsidy application was required to be forwarded by the financing bank through its controlling office, namely the Odisha State Central Cooperative Bank, however, the financing bank forwarded the claim directly to NABARD.

(v) Upon receipt of the subsidy claim on 04.11.2016, NABARD, by e-mail dated 09.11.2016, required the financing bank to submit the claim through the controlling office, whereafter no further action was taken by the bank.

(vi) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations before Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 and the Chairman of the Odisha State Central Cooperative Bank, Bhubaneswar.

(vii) Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8530 of 2019, which was disposed of on 27.07.2021 with a direction to Opposite Party No. 1 to consider the petitioner’s pending representation within a period of four months. Pursuant thereto, Opposite Party No. 1 rejected the petitioner’s claim by order dated 11.11.2021.

(viii) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the said order dated 11.11.2021.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) The petitioner contended that under the Scheme he was entitled to a subsidy of Rs. 1,12,000/- from Opposite Party No. 1 and that the subsidy claim was required to be made by the financing bank after release of the first instalment of the loan. He further contended that although the loan was sanctioned on 19.02.2012 and the first instalment was released on 30.11.2012, the subsidy claim was submitted by the financing bank only on 04.11.2016, after closure of his loan account on 14.06.2016. The petitioner submitted that after availing the loan, he diligently repaid the same and upon clearance of the entire loan amount, his loan account was closed by the financing bank on 14.06.2016.

(ii) The petitioner asserted that as per the Scheme, the subsidy application was requ