Satish Kumar Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 11 Cont/693/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 13]

Chattisgarh High Court

Satish Kumar Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 11 Cont/693/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                                                  NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         WPC No. 2197 of 2018

      Satish Kumar Chandrakar S/o Bhau Ram Chandrakar, aged
       about 38 Years, R/o Village Bharar, Post Jamgaon, Tahsil Patan
       District Durg Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Petitioner

                                 Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of
        Animal Husbandry, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur
        District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     2. Deputy   Director,    Veterinary      Services,    Gauravpath
        Padmanabhpur, Utai Road, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

     3. Chief Executive Officer, District Central Cooperative Bank
        Maryadit Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

     4. Branch Manager Cooperative Bank Jamgaon (R) Tahsil Patan,
        District Durg, Chhattisgarh

     5. National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD)
        Adarsh Nagar, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh

     6. Seva Sahkari Samiti, Village Bharar, Tahsil Patan, District Durg,
        Chhattisgarh

                                                       ---- Respondents

For Petitioner Shri C. K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Shashank Thakur, GA Hon'ble Justice Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 27/08/2018

1. Petitioner had obtained loan for establishing poultry farm and is presently in default of payment of loan as is clear from document (Annexure-P-10). In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to release the subsidy amount of Rs.2,80,000/- for which, according to him, the District Central Cooperative Bank, Durg has recommended his case for grant of subsidy vide Annexure-P-7 dated 21.06.2016, yet no action is taken.

2. The relation between the petitioner and the Cooperative Bank is on the basis of a loan agreement/transaction. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled for subsidy upon fulfillment of all the eligibility is to be seen by the NABARD and not by the writ Court. There is no document attached to the writ petition after issuance of Annexure-P-7 by the concerned Bank. The petitioner has never approached the NABARD for release of subsidy. Therefore, it is difficult to appreciate as to whether the petitioner is eligible and entitled for subsidy in terms of the scheme of NABARD.

3. Let the petitioner move representation before the NABARD, who in turn shall consult the matter with the District Central Cooperative Bank, Durg and decide the petitioner's eligibility for releasing the subsidy amount. If the petitioner is found to be eligible and entitled to the subsidy, there is no reason why the Authorities should not process the matter and take decision within a stipulated time. The petitioner may move the representation within 1 month, which shall be considered by the NABARD in consultation with the District Central Cooperative Bank, Durg within next 6 months.

4. The writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Nirala

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court