##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

134 CWP-15661-2026

Date of Decision: 19.05.2026

RAJ SINGH ...Petitioner

Vs.

PRESIDING OFFICER PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AND OTHERS

…Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate

for the petitioner

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227

of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of award dated

05.02.2026 whereby Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) has

rejected his claim for release of subsidy.

2. The petitioner applied to respondents for financial assistance

of ₹8,50,000/- for construction of a tin shed and purchase of buffaloes to

start a mini dairy. The respondent No.2-bank vide order dated 16.01.2010

sanctioned ₹1,55,000/- as first installment of the loan. The respondent on

30.03.2010 released subsidy of ₹1,50,000/-. The respondent vide order

dated 03.08.2010 sanctioned ₹2,65,500/- as second installment. On

account of non-release of third loan installment, the petitioner could not

run his operations as a result of which his account became Non-

Performing Asset (NPA). The outstanding loan was settled with

respondent No.2 by way of one-time settlement (OTS) dated 31.08.2019.

DEEPAK BISSYAN

2026.05.19 18:02

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-15661-2026 -2-

The petitioner paid ₹5,37,200/- towards full and final settlement. He

applied for No Objection Certificate. He preferred application dated

09.09.2020 to the respondent No.2 seeking release of subsidy but to no

avail. He filed an application under Section 22C of 1987 Act before PLA

which sought response of the respondent. The respondent No.2 submitted

that on satisfactory servicing of the loan, the amount in subsidy Reserve

Fund Account was to be adjusted against last few installments. Matter

was tried to be reconciled, however, was finally adjudicated on merits.

PLA has concluded that the loan account had been settled in 2019 and

any grievance qua interest or subsidy could be raised at the time of OTS

and further application is time barred.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that PLA has wrongly

rejected petitioner’s claim. The petitioner was entitled to subsidy which

could not be denied on the ground of settlement of loan account.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner finally

settled loan account with respondent on 30.11.2019 whereas application

before PLA was filed on 31.01.2023 i.e. after the expiry of three years.

PLA has dismissed petitioner’s claim not only on merit but also on the

ground of limitation. The petitioner is claiming subsidy. He did not

claim subsidy at the time of entering into one-time settlement. It was

petitioner who paid a sum of ₹5,37,200/- towards full and final

settlement. The findings recorded by PLA read as:-

“16. We have perused the case file very carefully. The

applicant did not produce any documents to prove the fact

that he had ever applied for releasing of the amount of

third installment. Ex. R33 is an application filed by the

DEEPAK BISSYAN

2026.05.19 18:02

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-15661-2026 -3-

applicant to respondent No.1 on 14.11.2019 and in this

application the applicant had made the request to the

Branch Manager of respondent No.1 to settle the loan

account of the applicant under one time settlement scheme.

The request of the applicant was accepted by respondent

No.1. The loan account of the applicant was settled and

the applicant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,37,200/-

under one time settlement scheme with the respondent

No.1 on 30.11.2019. Thereafter the applicant had filed an

application Ex.R.31 before the respondent No.1 with a

request to issue the 'No Objection Certificate' as he had

already deposited the amount of Rs.5,37,200/- with the

respondent No.1 under one time settlement scheme. In the

document Ex.R39 it is clearly mentioned that on

satisfact