[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Duhita Agro Export Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8351 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India)
--------------
M/S. Duhita Agro Export Pvt. Ltd. ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Harmohan Dhal, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik
[Additional Government Advocate]
Mr. Karunakar Jena,
[Advocate for O.P. No.2]
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
4 December, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ application
with the following prayer:-
"Under these circumstances the petitioner
most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court
be graciously pleased to issue a Rule NISI
calling upon the Opposite Parties to show
cause as to why:
i)The order under Annexure-28 shall not be
quashed;
ii)It shall not be held that the petitioner
company is eligible and entitled for sanction
of eligible subsidy in terms of MKUY
guidelines for the expansion project;
iii)The opposite parties shall not be directed
to sanction and release eligible subsidy
amounting to Rs.34,47,849/- in favour of the
petitioner-company,
iv)The opposite parties shall not be directed
to release the subsidy amount with
compound interest @ 20.25% (Three times of
bank rate) with monthly rest from appointed
day (03.09.2023) as per MSME Act 2006.
If the Opposite Parties fail to show
cause or show insufficient cause the rule be
made absolute.
And for this act of kindness the
petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray".
2. The petitioner applied for assistance under the
Mukhyamantri Krushi Udyog Yojana (MKUY) for setting
up a cashew processing plant. As per the scheme, he is
entitled to forty percent subsidy on fixed capital
expenditure. According to the petitioner, the fixed
capital expenditure is 1,29,92,460/-.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the APICOL, which is
the custodian of funds relating to disbursement of
subsidy to the beneficiaries, it is mentioned that the
total fixed capital investment of the petitioner is
Rs.37,92,197/-. As such, forty percent of said capital
expenditure comes to Rs.15,16,878/, which has already
been approved by the Managing Director, APICOL for
payment. But the said amount could not be disbursed
because the agreement was not signed by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner contends that the calculation of the
total fixed capital expenditure is entirely erroneous, as
the same is much more than what has been shown by
APICOL in its counter. According to the petitioner, he is
entitled to Rs.34,47,849/- towards subsidy. A sum of
Rs.15,52,151/- having already been released at the time
of commencement of the project, the remaining amount
to be released is more than Rs.19,00,000/-.
5. In view of the dispute relating to the amount of
subsidy admissible to the petitioner, the matter was
taken to the Government by the petitioner by submitting
several representations. His claim was rejected by order
dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure-28). Said order is
reproduced below:-
6. Bare reading of the order shows that some enquiry
was conducted 'at an appropriate level'. However, who
conducted the enquiry and who all were involved is not
clear. Moreover, though the letter refers to 'intentional
suppression of facts cannot be ruled out', nothing has
been stated in this regard nor any suppression of facts
specified.
7. The petitioner claims that he was not granted any
opportunity of hearing nor a copy of the enquiry report
was ever served upon him. This Court would not like to
enter into the factual controversy as above. However,
fact remains that the impugned order, as it stands,
cannot be sustained in the eye of law for being vague
and non-speaking at the very least. When a beneficiary
under a Government scheme has approached the
Government for redressal of his grievance, it is
incumbent upon the authorities to consider the same
with due seriousness and by adhering to the principles
of natural justice and fair play.
8. Obviously, an enquiry conducted behind the back
of the beneficiary cannot be utilized against him. This
Court therefore, has no hesitation in interfering in the
matter
9. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The
impugned order under Annexure-28 is hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted to the Opposite Party No.1 to
have a fresh enquiry conducted through a senior
Government functionary, after granting full opportunity
of participation therein to the petitioner.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion, either way, on merits of the claim.
However, in view of the specific stand taken by APICOL
in its counter affidavit that a sum of Rs.15,16,878/- has
already been sanctioned towards forty percent capital
investment subsidy, the same shall be released in
favour of the petitioner within two weeks without
prejudice to the stand that may be taken by APICOL in
future and subject to the petitioner signing the required
agreement.
11. It shall be open to APICOL to take its own stand as
regards the claim for subsidy raised by the petitioner
over and above the amount already sanctioned.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Signature Not High
Orissa Verified
Court, Cuttack,
The 4th December, 2025/ Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Steno
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 11-Dec-2025 18:32:54
