IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

rd

ON THE 3 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 2225 of 2024 SMT. KRISHNA PATEL Versus UNION BANK OF INDIA Appearance:

Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma- Senior Advocate with Ms. Priyal Suryavanshi- Advocate for the petitioner .

Shri Kapil Duggal- Advocate for respondent no.1 through video conferencing and Shri Gautam Singh Kourav- Advocate present in court for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The appellant/petitioner has filed this present writ appeal, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the writ court in W.P. No. 21600 of 2024 whereby the writ court has dismissed the writ petition. With the consent of the parties appeal is heard finally.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

(a) The appellant/petitioner is an agriculturist and has been running a firm in the name of "M/s Patel Warehouse". She availed an agricultural loan of Rs.65 lakhs in the year 2021 out of the total project cost of Rs.1.29 crores, in which the appellant/petitioner also invested Rs.64 lakhs. The appellant is entitled to a subsidy of 33.33% of the total project cost under the Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure (AMI) Sub-scheme of Integrated Scheme for Agricultural Marketing (ISAM)" (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) from NABARD, which amounts to Rs.42.59 lakhs. According to the appellant, the NABARD had released a subsidy amount of Rs.21.50 lakhs (sent on 23.06.2023) and a further subsidy amount of Rs.21.09 lakhs (sent on 12.06.2024) to the respondent/Union Bank of India [for brevity the "Bank"], but the same have not been credited in the loan account of the petitioner. Out of Rs.65 lakhs of agricultural loan amount, a total Rs.42.59 lakhs has been received by the Bank but still, as on 13.06.2024, the outstanding loan balance of Rs.30,48,127.80/- is shown.

3. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for appellant/petitioner, submits that the learned Single Bench has erred in interpreting that the loan of Rs.1.29 crores was sanctioned and a subsidy of 33.33% on this amount was granted to the petitioner. In fact, the loan amount is only Rs 65 lakhs, on which the subsidy of 33.33% was liable to be adjusted. Further, Rs.65 lakhs invested by the petitioner has been wrongly taken into consideration as the loan amount. The respondent/Bank has not properly credited the amount of Rs.42.59 lakhs in the loan account, hence the appellant is not getting the benefits of subsidy and is being charged with interest on the entire loan amount. The appellant is ready to pay the balance amount Rs.11.58 lakhs after adjusting the subsidy amount to close the bank loan account; hence, a writ/order be issued to the respondent bank to act as per the scheme.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank has opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that, as per the Schem, the appellant was required to repay the amount of credit facility by way of Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI) for the period of 5 years. As per the Scheme, no subsidy shall be adjusted for the first five years; thereafter, the amount of subsidy received from the NABARD will be adjusted. The said mechanism is clearly provided in Clauses 11.1 & 11.2 of the Scheme. The subsidy amount cannot be adjusted in the loan account uptill 11.02.2006 i.e before explaining 5 years. Hence, the writ petition has rightly been dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the scheme. The Operational Guidelines, 2018 were made applicable with effect from 22.10.2018 for a period upto 31.03.2020 by the Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare. The objective of the said Scheme was to develop and promote the marketing infrastructure in agriculture and to promote innovative and latest technologies, creation of scientific storage capacity for storing farm produce, processed farm produce, and agricultural inputs etc. Clause 9 deals with th