APHC010079242014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 36263/2014 Between:

1. SMT. N. HIMABINDU,, W/O R. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT

38 YEARS, R/O BUDIDETIVARIPALLE VILLAGE, YERRAVARIPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2. SMT. N. SUNEETHA, W/O VENKATA RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O BUDIDETIVARIPALLE VILLAGE, YERRAVARIPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.

2. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, NABARD, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, R.T.C. X ROADS, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD

3. SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, D.NO. 20-92/2 (1) NAIDU BUILDINGS, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR.

4. SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, YERRAVARIPALEM BANCH, YERRAVARIPALEM VILLAGE & MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the capital subsidy scheme to the Petitioners as per the Scheme formulated by the 1st Respondent Vide F.No.43-21/2009-LDT (P) Vol.III dated 17-4-2012 as illegal and arbitrary, 2) declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not extending the benefit of capital subsidy scheme under the premise that new Rules have come into existence as illegal and arbitrary, though the petitioners are entitled for the benefits as per the rules which are in vogue as on the date making application for availing the subsidy and 3) declare the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not resubmitting the proposals to the 2nd respondent for sanction of capital subsidy to the petitioners, as per the scheme formulated by the 1st respondent, despite the representation made by them on 9-3-2013 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to extend the capital subsidy to the petitioners in terms of the scheme framed by the 1st respondent vide F.No.43-21/2009-LDT(P) Vol.III, dated 17-4-2012 by obtaining proposals from the respondents 3 and 4 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 45394 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to extend the capital subsidy to the petitioners based on the proposals submitted by the respondents 3 and 4 in terms of the scheme framed by the 1st respondent vide F.No.43- 21/2009-LDT (P) III dated 17-4-2012, pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court IA NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP 45395 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to resubmit the proposals to the 2nd respondent to extend the capital subsidy to the petitioners in terms of the scheme framed by the 1st respondent vide No.F.No.43-

21/2009-LDT (P) Vol.III dated 17-4-2012, pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court IA NO: 3 OF 2014(WPMP 45396 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to proceed with the demand notice dated 6-11-2014, pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. N SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. N KOTESWARA RAO

2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

3. K SRINIVASA MURTHY

4. SATYANARAYANA DHARA The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.