IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.8351 of 2025

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of India)

--------------

M/S. Duhita Agro Export Pvt. Ltd. ...… Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Others ..…. Opp. Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-

_______________________________________________________

For Petitioner : Mr. Harmohan Dhal, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik

[Additional Government Advocate]

Mr. Karunakar Jena,

[Advocate for O.P. No.2]

_______________________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

4^th December, 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ application

with the following prayer:-

“Under these circumstances the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show

cause as to why:

i)The order under Annexure-28 shall not be quashed;

ii)It shall not be held that the petitioner company is eligible and entitled for sanction of eligible subsidy in terms of MKUY guidelines for the expansion project;

iii)The opposite parties shall not be directed to sanction and release eligible subsidy amounting to Rs.34,47,849/- in favour of the petitioner-company, iv)The opposite parties shall not be directed to release the subsidy amount with compound interest @ 20.25% (Three times of bank rate) with monthly rest from appointed day (03.09.2023) as per MSME Act 2006. If the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the rule be made absolute.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray”.

2. The petitioner applied for assistance under the Mukhyamantri Krushi Udyog Yojana (MKUY) for setting up a cashew processing plant. As per the scheme, he is entitled to forty percent subsidy on fixed capital expenditure. According to the petitioner, the fixed capital expenditure is 1,29,92,460/-.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the APICOL, which is the custodian of funds relating to disbursement of subsidy to the beneficiaries, it is mentioned that the total fixed capital investment of the petitioner is Rs.37,92,197/-. As such, forty percent of said capital expenditure comes to Rs.15,16,878/, which has already been approved by the Managing Director, APICOL for payment. But the said amount could not be disbursed because the agreement was not signed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner contends that the calculation of the total fixed capital expenditure is entirely erroneous, as the same is much more than what has been shown by APICOL in its counter. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to Rs.34,47,849/- towards subsidy. A sum of Rs.15,52,151/- having already been released at the time of commencement of the project, the remaining amount to be released is more than Rs.19,00,000/-.

5. In view of the dispute relating to the amount of subsidy admissible to the petitioner, the matter was taken to the Government by the petitioner by submitting several representations. His claim was rejected by order dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure-28). Said order is reproduced below:-

6. Bare reading of the order shows that some enquiry was conducted ‘at an appropriate level’. However, who conducted the enquiry and who all were involved is not clear. Moreover, though the letter refers to ‘intentional suppression of facts cannot be ruled out’, nothing has been stated in this regard nor any suppression of facts specified.

7. The petitioner claims that he was not granted any opportunity of hearing nor a copy of the enquiry report was ever served upon him. This Court would not like to enter into the factual controversy as above. However, fact remains that the impugned order, as it stands, cannot be sustained in the eye of law for being vague and non-speaking at the very least. When a beneficiary under a Government scheme has approached the Government for redressal of his grievance, it is incumbent upon the authorities to consider the same with due ser