logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MHC 7445 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 31791 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Parties : M. Selvam Versus The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Adi Dravidar Housing & Development Corporation (TAHDCO), Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Sathish, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R3, C.A. Ashok Kumar, Standing counsel, R2, V. Jeevagiridharan, Additional Government Pleader, R4, C. Mohan & A. Rexy Josephine Mary of M/s.King & Patridge, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 11-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in the order of the 3rd respondent Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.A1/001/2025, dated 11.06.2025, quash the same and consequently, direct the 1 st respondent to forthwith grant Tractor TAHDCO loan subsidy amount Rs.2,25,000/~ to the petitioner in terms of Na.Ka.No.TAHDCO~2023-24-EDP-TV-72, dated 11.10.2023.)

1. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.A1/001/2025, dated 11.06.2025 and consequently, direct the first respondent to forthwith grant Tractor TAHDCO loan subsidy amount of Rs.2,25,000/- to the petitioner in terms of Na.Ka.No.TAHDCO-2023-24-EDP-TV-72, dated 11.10.2023.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He applied for a loan facility under Tamil Nadu Adi-Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation (in short “TAHDCO”), Entrepreneur Development Programme (EDP) for the year 2023-2024. Under the scheme, he is fully qualified for the subsidized Tractor loan. Accordingly, on application of the petitioner, an interview letter dated 11.09.2023 was issued to the petitioner to appear before the District Level Selection Committee along with relevant documents on 15.09.2023. The petitioner appeared before the District Level Selection Committee with all the relevant documents. The petitioner was selected for the Tractor Loan Subsidy after considering the merits of his application. The petitioner received the copy of the recommendation letter, dated 11.10.2023, sent by the third respondent, namely, the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi~Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation to the fourth respondent/bank to submit Sanction Order (Form III) and as per the letter, the fourth respondent forwarded the sanction order to the third respondent on 30.11.2023. The third respondent inspected the tractor and its documents physically and thereafter, the petitioner purchased the tractor and intimated to the third respondent on 01.11.2023. However, the subsidy amount was not paid to the petitioner and when the petitioner enquired with the third respondent, it was informed to the petitioner that still the Government has not allocated the funds and advised the petitioner to approach TAHDCO head office. In this regard, the petitioner sent a representation on 20.05.2025 and the petitioner was informed by the third respondent that tractor subsidy amount has been temporarily withheld across Tamil Nadu. The third respondent also sent a reply on 11.06.2025 stating that the subsidy could not be released due to violation of TAHDCO rules for administrative reasons. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

3. The learned Standing counsel for Respondents 1 and 3 submitted that as per the current scheme, that is framed, vide G.O.No.113, ADW, dated 24.11.2020, the subsidy is a front end subsidy. At the outset, the subsidy had to be provided and along with the subsidy amount, the bank should have granted the loan for the balance amount and thereafter, the tractor ought to have been purchased. In this case, even before release of subsidy, the petitioner has purchased the tractor and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for release of subsidy.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions, that are made in the affidavit and also took the Court through various documents, that are filed in support of the writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 pointing out the counter affidavit and the Government Order, would submit that the subsidy has rightly been denied in this case.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. In this case, the scheme is framed vide G.O.No. 113 ADW dated 24.11.2020. Paragraph No.7 of the said Government Order reads as follows:-

                  

                  

8. Further, the following paragraph of the said Government Order also contains the manner, in which the subsidy will be released.

                  

9. Therefore. It can be seen that the subsidy was proposed to be a front end subsidy and the procedure that is contemplated by the Government Order is that once the beneficiary is selected by the District Level Selection Committee, he should apply for the bank and the bank should intimate to the appropriate authority for release of the subsidy amount and the subsidy amount should be released to the bank and along with the subsidy amount, the balance of the amount should be sanctioned as a loan and thereafter the tractor should be purchased, but, the Government Order does not stop with that. The Further procedure is also mentioned. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

                  

                  

10. Though the above paragraph seems to indicate that it is a front end subsidy, the same is not specifically mentioned, while prescribing the procedure to the bank managers. It does not say that the bank should first get the subsidy amount realised and then disburse the loan. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a categorical procedure, that is laid down in G.O.No.113, ADW, dated 24.11.2020 that unless the subsidy is availed as a front end subsidy, the very benefit of subsidy itself would be refused. As a matter of fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the recent Constitution Bench Judgment in Sivanandan C.T and Others Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others reported in [(2023) 11 SCR 674], had held that the citizens are entitled to plan their affairs of business on the trust, they repose in the state and on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation and also on the principles of consistency and predictability as aspects of non-arbitrariness and that an aggrieved person will have a right even with reference to these benefits that are confirmed by the State and its authorities.

11. Thus, it can be seen that the subsidies are not bounties but the parties can plan and arrange their affairs in accordance with the promises that are made by the State authorities in the form of subsidies.

12. Therefore, when the petitioner is found to be eligible by the District Level Committee in all respects, merely because the bank authority did not avail the release of the subsidy and then proceed to release the loan amount and the tractor is purchased, the same by itself should not disentitle the petitioner for the subsidy amount.

13. In view thereof, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed on the following terms:-

                   (i)The impugned order dated 11.06.2025 stands quashed.

                   (ii)The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to release the subsidy amount of Rs.2,25,000/- directly to the fourth respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order. If there is any delay, then the same shall be realised with further interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from today.

14. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal