APHC010391372023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 825 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:- 3 [3446] The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Ns Forage Solutions Private Limited and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: GP for Animal Husbandary Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. Subba Rao Korrapati CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 26th December 2025 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 28.12.2022, passed in W.P. No.36785 of 2022. The petitioner had filed W.P. No.36785 of 2022 seeking a mandamus for release of an amount of Rs.90,86,250/-, which represented the subsidy amount on account of purchase of Forage Harvester FR 500 model and the Baler. The Harvester and the Baler were purchased on 03.03.2019. 2. The grant of subsidy for purchase of such a machine was governed by G.O.Rt.No.294, dated 27.12.2016, which envisaged payment of 50% subsidy on purchase of the equipment and machine as stated hereinabove. According to the terms and conditions of the G.O. supra, the payment of subsidy was 2 HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.825 of 2023 subject to certain conditions i.e., physical verification of the asset with reference to the particulars mentioned in the invoice by the Joint Director concerned and insurance of the equipment for a period of five years, most importantly, the conditions 3 and 4, which are reproduced hereunder: “3. Utilize the equipment in the territory of Andhra Pradesh. 4. The equipment shall be deployed at the places indicated by the Government for processing of green fodder as silage by the farmers at the rates approved by the Government as per the Terms & Conditions.” 3. The writ petitioner claims that it had purchased the Harvester and the Baler in terms of the policy as reflected in G.O.Rt.No.294 and was entitled to the grant of subsidy. It is stated that the machine purchased by the petitioner remained in the territory of Andhra Pradesh from 2019 to 2022 which fact is not denied by learned counsel for the appellants. Then it was stated to have moved to Punjab where finally it got burnt on account of a fire incident. 4. An inspection appears to have been conducted by the authorities of the State for purposes of determining the eligibility of the petitioner and found that since the machine had been moved beyond the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, the petitioner was held not entitled. It is in those circumstances that the writ petition came to be filed, which was allowed by virtue of the judgment and order impugned and a direction was issued to the respondent State to pay the subsidy amount. 5. The present writ appeal has been preferred challenging the aforementioned direction primarily on the ground that the amount was not 3 HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.825 of 2023 payable inasmuch as the learned single Judge has failed to appreciate that the direction was contrary to the mandate of G.O.Rt.No.294. 6. A similar question has also arisen in W.A. No.927 of 2023. The facts and circumstances, which were noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in that appeal, were similar as in the instant case. In that case also, the petitioner had moved the machinery to a State outside the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh after having retained the machinery since its purchase in 2019 till 2022. In those circumstances, what had been observed by this Bench was as under: “12. It is not denied that the machinery continued to remain within the State of Andhra Pradesh from 2019 till 2022 when the machinery admittedly has been moved out. Despite the fact that we had put a specific query to the learned counsel for the appellants to indicate as to whether the Government had at any point of time directed the operation of the machinery belonging to the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein at any specific place or places within the State of Andhra Pradesh to which we did not get any satisfactory answer nor has any such material been placed on record either along with the Memo of Appeal or before the writ Court. This we are pointing out keeping in mind the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein that at no point of time did the Government indicate the places where the machinery could have been operated which then was lying in disuse and causing huge loss and liability on the loans which had been taken by the petitioner to purchase the machine. It is stated that if the operation of the machinery in the State of Andhra Pradesh as per locations identified by the Government could generate enough work, certainly, the petitioner would have continued to operate the same. However, it is stated that no such areas were identified by the Government and therefore, this forced the petitioner to move the machinery out. We are of the opinion that G.O.Rt.No.295, dated 30th August, 2018, did not at any point of time indicate that after the purchase of the machinery, if the same was operated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, the subsidy amount would be liable to be either refused or liable to be recovered if payment had already been made. In the absence of any such penal clause and in the absence of any specific limit prescribed by the Government for operating the machinery within the State of Andhra Pradesh and in view of the fact that the Government had already approved the case of the petitioner for payment of subsidy amount not on one but on three occasions i.e., in 2020, 2021 and 2022, it would not be open for the 4 HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.825 of 2023 Government to now claim that the petitioner would not be entitled to receive the said subsidy amount. 13. In a decision reported in State of U.P. and others vs. Babu Ram Upadhya1, the Apex Court held at para No.29 as under:- “The relevant rules of interpretation may be briefly stated thus: When a statute uses the word "shall", prima facie, it is mandatory, but the Court may ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute. For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature the Court may consider, inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions, the fact that the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered.” 14. We have also noticed that the writ Court had placed reliance upon the judgment passed in W.P. No.10038 of 2021 and batch. It appears that the said judgment was in fact passed in a batch of writ petitions where directions had been issued for release of payment to the petitioners whose bills have been cleared but payment had not been made. Although learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the said judgment was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it would apply inasmuch as this was also a case where bills had been approved for payment but payment had not been actually made on account of non-availability of funds, as admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. ” In the instant case also, while it is not denied that the machinery was moved out of the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, learned counsel for the appellant has not reflected any instance where the Government had at any point of time directed the operation of the machinery belonging to the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein at any specific place or places within the State of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Failure on the part of the Government to indicate the places where the machinery could have been operated would have certainly led to disuse of the 1 1960 SCC Online SC 5 5 HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.825 of 2023 machinery and considering the fact that the Harvester in question had been financed, it was but natural that the petitioner would have moved the machinery to a place where there was more business to be conducted. In our opinion, the subsidy amount would certainly be payable on account of the purchase of the machinery in question and cannot be denied only because the machinery had been moved from Andhra Pradesh to a territory outside. Be that as it may, following the view already taken in W.A. No.927 of 2023, we find no merit in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J akn 6 HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.825 of 2023 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Writ Appeal No:825 of 2023 DATE : 26.12.2025 AKN 18