Disposed

Dhiraj Kumar Prajapati v. Khadi Gramodyog, Commission of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2018WRIC/35685/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition without adjudicating the merit on the claim for a subsidy. It directed the nodal bank to reconsider the petitioner's grievances within one month if a fresh representation is made.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider and decide a fresh representation from the petitioner within one month after he files it with certified copy of this order.

Dhiraj Kumar Prajapati Vs Khadi Gramodyog… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35685 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dhiraj Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- Khadi Gramodyog, Commission Of India And 3 Others

¶2

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Ram Singh,Rajesh Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Pandey,Habib Ahmad

¶3

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajesh Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1, 2 & 3. No one appears for respondent no.4.

¶5

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to take a final decision in the matter of release of subsidy amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to be credited into the loan account of the petitioner.

¶6

It appears that the petitioner applied for loan of Rs.4,75,000/for running a business of electrical parts, sale and repairing for which it is stated that 5% of the amount was to be deposited by the petitioner and 35% amount was to be provided by the Government by means of subsidy amount. Thus, Rs.1,75,000/was to be paid by the respondent no.2 by means of the subsidy to the respondent-bank. The petitioner contends that he has already taken a loan on which he has to pay interest and for want of payment of subsidy the interest amount is adding to his principal amount of loan.

¶7

We find no good ground for keeping this writ petition pending.

¶8

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with the direction that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent no.2, Director, U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Lucknow (Nodal Bank under P.M.E. G.P. Scheme) raising all his grievances as raised in the present writ petition within a period of one week from today alongwith the certified copy of this order, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of one month.

¶9

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits.

¶10

Order Date :- 27.10.2018/N Tiwari

Dhiraj Kumar Prajapati v. Khadi Gramodyog, Commission of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiraj Kumar Prajapati v. Khadi Gramodyog, Commission of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Sudha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S Urmila Devi Pashu Ahar Kendra and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Amit Rathi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nirmala Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Babu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad Gymkhana Club Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Min. of Urban Planning and Ors.