Dismissed

Chintamani Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Feb 2026WPC/1225/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh considered a petition seeking to set aside an order rejecting a claim for an outstanding subsidy of Rs. 1,16,052 under the Naveen Rajya Poshit Dairy Vikas Yojana. The Court found that the benefit was extended based on verification of 5 cattle and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking release of the outstanding subsidy and direction to revive the petitioner's application was dismissed.

Chintamani Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:7085

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1225 of 2022

¶6

Chintamani Patel S/o Raghu Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Judga, Block And Tahsil Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Veterinary Services, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.).

¶10

2 - The Director Directorate Of Veterinary Services, New Raipur DistrictRaipur (C.G.).

¶11

3 - The Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).

¶12

4 - The Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Veterinary Hospital Sakti, DistrictJanjgir- Champa (C.G.).

¶13

5 - The Collector District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.).

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellant : None

¶16

For State/ Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate General

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Judgment on Board

¶19

09/02/2026

¶20

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶21

¶22

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the order dated 31.12.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1), issued by respondent no. 3, and direct the respondents to release the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,16,052/- (One Lakh Sixteen Thousand Fifty Two Rupees) to the petitioner, regarding establishment of Dairy Unit under scheme of "Naveen Rajya Dairy Udymita Vikas Yojnana" 2017 issued under the department of respondent no. 1 which is not released, in the interest of the justice.

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents revive to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 17.01.2022 submitted before respondent authority to clarify wrong submission and seeking release the remaining subsidy amount regarding establishment of Dairy Unit, in the interest of the justice.

¶24

10.3 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. ”

¶25

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is an agriculturists and in the year 2017, the respondent No.1 issued a scheme “Naveen Rajya Poshit Dairy Vikas Yojaja” and pursuant thereof, the petitioner established a Dairy and claimed subsidy as per scheme. The petitioner invested Rs.8,01,950/- and according to the scheme, he was entitled for subsidy to the tune of Rs.3.60 lakh. The petitioner received Rs.2.10 lakh on 30.07.2018; Rs.33,948/- on 16.03.2021 and Rs. 1,16,052/- is still outstanding.

¶26

3. The petitioner filed WPC No.4842 of 2021 for direction to the respondent authorities to take decision on the representation filed by him and the matter was disposed of on 02.12.2021 reserving the liberty in favour of the petitioner to make fresh representation before

¶27

¶28

respondent No.2 & 3 and in turn the said authorities were directed to consider representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶29

4. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2021 and against the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.

¶30

5. The authority concerned while rejecting the representation observed that during verification dated 01.01.2021, out of 7 cows, 5 cows matched with the documents. Considering the number of cattles i.e. 5, the appropriate benefit of subsidy was extended to the petitioner.

¶31

6. Taking into consideration the fact that in physical verification, the respondent authorities found only 5 (five) cattle, the benefit of subsidy has already been extended according to the scheme, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure P/1).

¶32

7. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.

¶33

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Nadim

Chintamani Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintamani Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shanti Harijan Vs Chaitanya Kumbhar

Smt. Jhamit Bai Vs Santosh Kumar

Vivek Sharma Vs Hitesh Sharma

Smt. Santoshi Maravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Uday Mudliar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh