(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.14377 of 2022.)

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ.

1. This appeal challenges the order dated 11.9.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14377 of 2022. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge declined to quash the rejection order issued by the first respondent/National Horticulture Board and dismissed the plea of the appellant for a direction to sanction 50% capital subsidy, as well as his prayer for a waiver of interest on credit facilities granted by the second respondent/Bank of Baroda.

2.1. The appellant, an agriculturist based in Hosur, sought to establish a modern poly-house cultivation facility for growing highvalue crops across an extent of 2.62 acres in Thummanapalli Village. To finance the overall project outlay of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, the appellant contributed Rs.25,00,000/- from his personal funds and secured a term loan facility of Rs.75,00,000/- from the second respondent/Bank of Baroda under a sanction letter dated 14.9.2018.

                     2.2. The appellant sought to avail a 50% back-ended capital subsidy offered under the "Development of Commercial Horticulture" scheme administered by the first respondent/National Horticulture Board. For assistance with the technical documentation and submission process, the appellant engaged the services of a professional consultant, Indian Horticulture and Food Processing Consultancy/third respondent.

                     2.3. The appellant submitted an online application for In- Principle Approval (IPA) on the National Horticulture Board portal. Under the scheme's governing circulars, an applicant must submit a signed physical copy of the online application, complete with all required supporting documents, within a strict timeline, viz., originally 30 days, later extended to 60 days from the online submission date. The physical documents were not delivered to the Board within the stipulated 60-day period. Consequently, the Pre- Project Appraisal Committee (PPAC) of the Board considered the application and formally rejected the proposal due to non-receipt of the hard copy within the validity period. This rejection was recorded on the online portal on 20.7.2019. The appellant's subsequent appeal before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) on 23.7.2020, yielded the same result, confirming the initial rejection.

                     2.4. Faced with mounting financial distress, compounded by market disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic and debt recovery actions initiated by second respondent/Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition in 2022. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, observing that the operational guidelines governing public subsidy schemes are mandatory, and failure to comply with the 60-day submission deadline is fatal to the claim. Aggrieved by that decision, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a small-scale farmer with limited formal education and he is unfamiliar with digital platforms and procedural mechanics. He submitted that the appellant trusted his hired consultant/third respondent and the second respondent/bank to handle procedural compliance on his behalf and the primary default in delivering the physical documents on time is ascribable to respondents 2 and 3.

                     3.2. It is further submitted that the appellant completed the physical construction of the poly-house unit at substantial personal expense and the second respondent/Bank issued a formal Project Completion Certificate confirming that the structure was fully operational and, therefore, denying the subsidy on a purely technical delay penalizes a genuine farmer who fulfilled the primary objective of the scheme.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

5. The primary question before us is whether a writ court can issue a direction to compel a public body to grant a financial subsidy when the appellant admittedly failed to adhere to the mandatory time-frames established by the governing policy.

6. A subsidy is a grant extended by the sovereign to encourage specific economic or developmental activities. While every eligible citizen has a right to be considered fairly under a public scheme, no citizen holds an inherent legal right to receive a subsidy unless all prerequisite procedural and substantive conditions laid down in the scheme are fully met.

7. In the case at hand, the central policy circular governing National Horticulture Board applications mandates that a signed hard copy of the application, accompanied by essential verified documents, must reach the Board within 60 days of online generation. This rule is not a mere technicality. In fact, it ensures that public funds are allocated transparently to vigilant applicants and stale applications are excluded.

8. The record confirms that the appellant’s physical application was not delivered to the Board within the prescribed 60-day time frame. Both the Pre-Project Appraisal Committee and the Grievance Redressal Committee reviewed the application and determined that this omission barred approval. This court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot rewrite policy timelines or issue directives that compel statutory or autonomous bodies to bypass their own operational guidelines.

9. The argument advanced by the appellant that he relied on his consultant and financing bank does not merit consideration. The primary responsibility for ensuring timely compliance under a public scheme rests with the appellant.

10. The action of the second respondent/bank in pursuing debt recovery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal stems from contractual default under established banking laws. A bank's statutory right to recover outstanding public money under a contract cannot be tagged with the subsidy claim.

11. For the reasons aforegiven, we find no error in the judgment under appeal.

The writ appeal stands dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.