Procedural law must uphold substantive rights, and dereliction of duty by public authorities warrants judicial intervention to ensure timely justice and accountability.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has approached this Court for the third time, seeking a specific direction to the Opposite Parties for releasing of the Capital Investment Subsidy, which has been unjustly withheld despite multiple representations and prior judicial orders.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner aimed to establish a commercial broiler project under a self-employment scheme provided by the State Agricultural Policy.

(ii) The petitioner’s project was selected, approved, and she was given the go-ahead to proceed. Upon nearing the completion of the project, the petitioner applied for the release of the Capital Investment Subsidy, which was part of the scheme.

(iii) A complaint was lodged against the project on the grounds of environmental pollution, leading to an inquiry by the appropriate authorities. The petitioner complied with the suggestions made by the Pollution Control Board and made subsequent requests for the release of the subsidy.

(iv) After repeated requests for the release of the subsidy were ignored, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 7278 of 2016. The Court directed the concerned authorities to dispose of her representation, but the subsidy remained unreleased.

(v) Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second writ petition W.P. (C) No.12908 of 2016, which was disposed of on 06.07.2018. This Court directed the petitioner to comply with the suggestions of the Pollution Control Board and resubmit her representation, after which the subsidy for 4000 birds was to be released within 15 days of compliance.

(vi) The petitioner complied with the suggestion from the Pollution Control Board and made a representation to the opposite parties on 10.07.2019 for the release of the subsidy.

(vii) The opposite parties, in response, informed the petitioner on 23.04.2019 that the release of the subsidy could not proceed because the model code of conduct for the general elections was in effect.

(viii) The petitioner continued to engage with the authorities, including opposite party no. 4, for joint verification of the project. However, instead of releasing the subsidy, the opposite parties returned her proposal, effectively closing the opportunity for receiving the subsidy.

(ix) Aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite parties, the petitioner has approached this Court for the third time, seeking a direction to release the subsidy.

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 submitted that despite completing all the necessary steps and complying with the Pollution Control Board’s suggestions, the subsidy has still not been released, which is a violation of the scheme under the State Agricultural Policy.

(ii) He further submitted that the authorities have failed to comply with the previous orders to release the subsidy within 15 days of compliance.

(iii) The petitioner contended that the reason provided by the opposite parties, that the subsidy was delayed due to the model code of conduct during elections, as an inadequate and arbitrary excuse for not processing her legitimate claim.

(iv) He further contended that the actions of the opposite parties, including the decision to return her subsidy proposal without proper justification and deprived her of her legitimate claim of the subsidy.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) It is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on both legal and