Disposed¶10

Yash Agro Dairy Food Park Private Limited Thr. Its Director Mrs. Anita Pradeep Thombre v. Union of India Thr. the Secretary Ministry of Food Processing Industirs and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2026WP/4507/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank guarantee forfeiture; Integrated Cold Chain and Value Addition Infrastructure scheme; Pradhan Mantri Kisan SAMPADA Yojana guidelines dated 08.06.2022; grant-in-aid release; Ministry of Food Processing Industries; project withdrawal letter 26.02.2026; cancellation order 24/30.03.2026; interim restraint on respondent No.2; notice returnable 06.05.2026; Yash Agro Dairy Food Park Private Limited v. Union of India; Aurangabad Bench; writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction that respondent No.2 shall not act on the letter dated 30.03.2026 issued by respondent No.1, if not already acted upon; notice to respondents with returnable date of 06.05.2026. ¶10

Yash Agro Dairy Food Park Private Limited Thr. Its Director Mrs. Anita Pradeep Thombre vs Union of India Thr. the Secretary Ministry of Food Processing Industirs and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim direction that respondent No.2 shall not act on the letter dated 30.03.2026 issued by respondent No.1, if not already acted upon; notice to respondents with returnable date of 06.05.2026.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 could lawfully forfeit the bank guarantee furnished under the Integrated Cold Chain and Value Addition Infrastructure scheme when, as contended per the scheme guidelines dated 08.06.2022 (Pradhan Mantri Kisan SAMPADA Yojana), such action was permissible only if the grant-in-aid had been released by the Ministry. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Notice issued to the respondents (Standing Counsel waiving service for respondent No.1); notice for respondent No.2 made returnable on 06.05.2026; as an interim measure, respondent No.2 directed not to act on the letter dated 30.03.2026 issued by respondent No.1, if not already acted upon.

¶10

Key takeaways

Prima facie observation that there is a disputed question of fact as to whether the grant-in-aid was released or not, and that respondent No.1 would be in a position to clarify the said fact, which is why notice was issued.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order (Aurangabad Bench, Bombay High Court, 23.04.2026) in a writ petition by Yash Agro Dairy Food Park Private Limited challenging the forfeiture of its bank guarantee by respondent No.1 (Union of India, Ministry of Food Processing Industries) under the Integrated Cold Chain and Value Addition Infrastructure scheme (Pradhan Mantri Kisan SAMPADA Yojana, guidelines dated 08.06.2022). After the petitioner withdrew its project by letter dated 26.02.2026 for want of a bank loan, a cancellation order dated 24/30.03.2026 was passed forfeiting the bank guarantee; counsel contended that per the scheme such action was permissible only if grant-in-aid had been released by the Ministry. The Court issued notice, observed a prima facie disputed question of fact on whether grant-in-aid was released, and directed that respondent No.2 shall not act on respondent No.1's letter dated 30.03.2026, if not already acted upon; matter returnable on 06.05.2026.

¶1

( 1 ) 3 WP 4507 OF 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

3 WRIT PETITION NO. 4507 OF 2026

¶4

YASH AGRO DAIRY FOOD PARK PRIVATE LIMITED THR. ITS DIRECTOR MRS. ANITA PRADEEP THOMBRE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

UNION OF INDIA THR. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTIRS AND ORS.

¶7

Mr. R. R. Totala, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. S. Deve, Senior Panel Counsel, for Respondent No.1

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : 23.04.2026

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel waives service of notice for respondent No1. Notice of respondent No.2 is made returnable on 06.05.2026. In the meantime, respondent No.2 shall not act on the letter dated 30.03.2026 issued by respondent No.1, if not already acted upon.

¶11

Learned Advocate for the petitioner is, in fact, contending that the petitioner, who is an agree-food and dairy Entrepreneur operating in the rural area, had made application under the scheme of Integrated Cold Chain and Value Addition Infrastructure scheme. As per the scheme, the bank guarantee

¶12

( 2 ) 3 WP 4507 OF 2026

¶13

was furnished by the petitioner. However, the petitioner could not procure the bank loan and therefore gave letter on 26.02.2026 for the withdrawal of their project. Accordingly, cancellation order came to be passed on 24/30.03.2026. However, while doing so, respondent No.1 had forfeited the bank guarantee submitted at the time of the approval of the project, though as per the scheme, such action could have been taken by respondent No.1 only in the event the grant-in-aid would have been released by respondent No.1 – Ministry. He, for that purpose, relies on the guidelines dated 08.06.2022 of the Pradhan Mantri Kisan SAMPADA Yojana scheme for Integrated Cold Chain and Value Addition Infrastructure.

¶14

At this stage, prima facie, it appears that there is a disputed question of fact as to whether the grant-in-aid was released or not yet. Respondent No.1 would be in a position to clarify the said fact and therefore, we have issued the notice.

¶15

( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶16

PRW

Yash Agro Dairy Food Park Private Limited Thr. Its Director Mrs. Anita Pradeep Thombre v. Union of India Thr. the Secretary Ministry of Food Processing Industirs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yash Agro Dairy Food Park Private Limited Thr. Its Director Mrs. Anita Pradeep Thombre v. Union of India Thr. the Secretary Ministry of Food Processing Industirs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Ramakant Sonar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Ramabai Anna Abhang and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ms Merrygold Enterprises vs the Authorized Officer and Ors.

Rajendra Kashinath Pare and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Kautik Dhormare vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and Others

Ms Merrygold Enterprises vs the Authorized Officer and Ors.