Dismissed¶28

Doman Lal Markandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Dec 2025WPC/1114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; dairy subsidy claim rejected for breach of scheme conditions. Keywords: Rajya Dairy Udhamita Vikas Yojna; balance subsidy Rs. 6,99,000/-; Scheduled Caste beneficiary; Veterinary Department; Joint Director Raipur; agreement Annexure P/1 Conditions 7 and 11; inspection team report; animals not found at dairy site; unit not run for three years; State of Chhattisgarh; High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur; Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; 2025:CGHC:60404.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was not fulfilling Conditions Nos. 7 and 11 of the agreement: he did not continue the dairy farm unit continuously for a period of 03 years from the date of taking the benefit of the scheme, and the inspection team found no animals at the place mentioned in the application. ¶27

Doman Lal Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:60404

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1114 of 2023

¶6

1 - Doman Lal Markandey S/o Shri Kaliram Markandey Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Village Majitha, Block Arang, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Veterinary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Joint Director, Veterinary Department, Near Mandi Get Pandri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶14

ORDER ON BOARD

¶15

11/12/2025

¶16

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶17

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant balance subsidy of Rs. 6,99,000/- within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.

¶18

10.2 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has

¶20

floated the scheme of Rajya Dairy Udhamita Vikas Yojna, for which, the State Government is providing fund of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the persons who

¶21

¶22

are interested in operating dairy farm. Petitioner being a member of Scheduled Caste Community submitted an application and accordingly, the funds have been sanctioned in his name and Rs. 1,00,000/- was disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner being a member of Scheduled Caste Community was entitled for Rs. 7,94,200/- out of which, only Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid to him and the balance amount was not disbursed in his favour.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that after submission of the application, the respondent authorities have released an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of Rs. 7,94,200/- (subsidy) in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, inspection of farm was done by the respondent authorities and during inspection, the authorities found that there was no animal and the petitioner informed that due to shortage of water, they have been shifted to some other place and they'll be brought back after sometime. However, evenafter lapse of sufficient time, the animals were not brought back. Further, no documents with regard to shifting of animals is made between the beneficiary and the owner of the dairy farm.

¶24

He submits that the petitioner has not purchased the animals from the funds received from the government and further, that evenafter giving several calls to the owner of dairy, i.e. Dileep Kumar Kesharwani, he has not appeared and recorded his statement. He further contended that from the report of the inspection team, it is apparent that the petitioner is not interested in running the dairy farm and the animals were also not found in the place where the petitioner is stated to have been kept the animals and therefore, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

¶26

¶27

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the beneficiary of the Rajya Dairy was Udhamita Vikas Yojna and according to the scheme, the subsidy of Rs. 7,94,200/- is said to be released in his favour, which was subject to conditions i.e. enumerated in the agreement Annexure P/1. Inspecting team found that the petitioner is not fulfilling the conditions as enumerated in the agreement in particular, the Conditions No. 7 and 11. From the report of the inspection team, it is appearing that the petitioner did not continue with the unit of the dairy farm continuously for a period of 03 years from the date of taking of fund benefit of the scheme and the inspection team has not found any animals in the place as mentioned in the application.

¶28

In the aforementioned facts of this case, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner would not be entitled for the relief as claimed, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed .

¶29

Digitally Sd/- SHUBHAM signed by DEY SHUBHAMDEY (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶30

Dey

Doman Lal Markandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doman Lal Markandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indus Tower Limited, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Joidha Verma Vs Smt. Kamla Bai Verma and Ors.

Smt. Rahmat Bee (Dead) Kamruddin (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. Vs Harshveer Singh and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh