High Court
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) wp5019.23IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 5019 OF 2023Lalasaheb Dattatray Kadam & Ors...PetitionersVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra & Ors...RespondentsMr.S.S. Tope, Advocate for the petitioners.Mr.Ruchir Wani, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.Mr.B.M. Dhanure, Advocate for respondent No.6-Union of India.CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE: JULY 25, 2024ORDER : [PER : KISHORE C. SANT,J.] :-01.This petition is filed by 84 petitioners seeking writ ofmandamus directing the State authorities to provide assistance/subsidyto the petitioners towards sugarcane harvesting machines, purchasedafter the year 2018-19 till the year 2022-23. The petitioners are theagriculturists, who have purchased sugarcane harvesting machines ( 2 ) wp5019.23between financial years 2019-20 to 2022-23. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 arethe State of Maharashtra and its instrumentalities. Respondent No.6 isthe Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture,Cooperation and Agricultural Welfare. 02.The case of the petitioners is that the Union of India hadintroduced a scheme, namely, Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna –Remunerative Approaches for Agriculture and Allied sector Rejuvenation(RKVY – RAFTAAR). Respondent No.6 issued operational guidelines inthe said scheme. This scheme was for the year 2017-18 to 2019-20,introduced with the object, inter alia, to provide assistance to individualbeneficiaries for farm mechanization efforts. Earlier there was noassistance for large equipments like tractor, combined harvester,sugarcane harvester, cotton picker etc. for which individual ownershipmay not be economically viable and it was, therefore, decided to provideassistance for establishing custom hiring centers under RKVY.03.Based upon said policy, the State of Maharashtra also took apolicy decision to provide assistance to purchase sugarcane harvestermachine in the year 2018-19 under RKVY. The Commissioner of Sugar - ( 3 ) wp5019.23respondent No.5 thus prepared a scheme for providing assistance toindividual purchaser by way of subsidy for purchase of sugarcaneharvester. The report was communicated by communication dated23.04.2018. The State of Maharashtra considered the said proposal andframed a scheme. By communication dated 21.06.2018 to the Secretary(Agriculture and Cooperation), the Government of Maharashtracommunicated that the target for the year 2018-19 was for purchase of60 harvester machines costing Rs.60 crores. Considering the costing,assistance of 40% of the cost of machine or Rs.40 lakhs whichever wasless, was to be paid to the purchaser, by way of assistance/subsidy. Aspecial budged was created for the said scheme. Pursuant to the saidpolicy, assistance was provided for the said period subject to certainconditions. Respondent No.6 by communication dated 21.08.2018informed that the individual entrepreneurs/manufacturers are eligible forsubsidy @ 40% of the project cost and same is also applicable forassistance for large equipments e.g. tractor, combined harvester,sugarcane harvester, cotton picker for custom hire.04.The petitioners purchased harvesting machines after the saidscheme period and therefore subsidy was not given. Some of the ( 4 ) wp5019.23similarly situated persons like present petitioners had approached thisCourt by way of filing Writ Petition No. 11126 of 2019, praying forbenefits under the RKVY, since their proposals were not accepted on theground of “custom hiring”. This Court by order dated 29.03.2023considered grievances of the petitioners and directed respondent/State toprocess request of the petitioners for extending benefits under RKVYscheme and to take decision in accordance with law and to communicatethe same to the concerned petitioners.05.Now it is the case of the petitioners that thereafter the StateGovernment again submitted proposal to the Government of India on13.10.2022 pursuant to meeting dated 12.09.2022 of State Level ProjectScreening Committee (SLPSC) requesting for additional funds allocationfor the financial year 2022-23 to 2023-24 as a special project. Furtherextension was also prayed for by communication dated 22.11.2022. It isthe case of the Petitioners that inspite of this the scheme is not extendedfurther. It is stated that not granting subsidy after 2019-20 isdiscriminatory. 06.The Government of Maharashtra thereafter took a decision on ( 5 ) wp5019.2320.03.2023 considering need to grant subsidy to the sugarcane harvesterunder RKVY, on the basis of communication dated 08.12.2022 by theUnion of India through Department of Agriculture and Farmers WelfareMinistry, making funds available for sugarcane harvester for the year2022-23 and 2023-24 under RKVY scheme. As per the said decision ofthe State, it was again decided to provide assistance/subsidy at the rate40% of the cost of sugarcane harvester or Rs. 35 lakhs, whichever isless. In the guidelines target was fixed of 450 harvesters for each year,total 900 sugarcane harvesters as per the scheme. 07.The petitioners state that an association, namely,Maharashtra Rajya Oos Todni Machine Malak Sanghatana (MaharashtraState Sugarcane Cutting Machine Owners Association) addressed acommunication dated 28.03.2023 to the Chief Minister. In the saidcommunication it is mentioned that it was assured by the Chief Ministerin the year 2018 that subsidy @ 40% or Rs. 40 lakhs would be giventowards purchase of sugarcane harvester. However, there is no suchdecision taken. It was requested for taking a policy decision to thateffect. However, inspite of the representation no such assistance isprovided nor any scheme is framed for the year 2019-20. The ( 6 ) wp5019.23petitioners, thus, have approached this Court stating that this action innot providing subsidy/assistance only for the period in between isdiscriminatory and authorities are required to be directed to provideassistance/subsidy as prayed for.08.On this backgroiund, the main question which falls for ourconsideration is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief ofsubsidy or financial assistance. Even as per the petitioners ownaverments they purchased the machines on oral and other assurancesfrom the Government, as stated in the opening para. The policy forproviding assistance/subsidy was for the period 2017-18. The petitionerspurchased the machines from the year 2018-19 to 2022-23. In para-6 itis stated that the petitioners were under expectation that after purchaseof the machines they will get subsidy. Even from the representationdated 28.03.2023 annexed to the petition at page No.111 i.e. arepresentation by the so called association, it is seen that they requestedthe Chief Minister to consider the matter of grant of subsidy. It is, thus,clear that as on the date of purchase, there was no scheme in existenceproviding such relief. Thus, the petitioners were aware that there is noscheme in force when they purchased the machines.
Decision
( 7 ) wp5019.2309.Considering from another angle as to whether receiving ofsubsidy is a matter of right, the Hon’ble Apex Court has already held inthe judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2018) 12SCC 518 that grant of subsidy is a matter of privilege to be extended bythe Government and same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Wethus find that the petitioners have not shown that on the date ofpurchase either there was policy in existence or there were assurancesgiven by any of the authority that the petitioners would be given benefitof financial assistance or subsidy. It is clear that the petitioners have notpurchased the machines on any assurance given. There is thus noquestion of petitioners having any legitimate expectations. Thus, on allthese counts, clear answer to the question posed is in ‘negative’. ThisCourt finds that no case is made out to allow the petition and to grantthe prayers in the petition. The petition, therefore, deserves to bedismissed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.][CHIEF JUSTICE] snk/2024/JUL24/wp5019.23