JUDGMENT : SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J. 1. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, assails the letter/order dated 11.01.2021 issued by Opposite Party No. 1 and seeks a direction to Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 for release of the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,12,000/-, stated to be payable under the Poultry Venture Capital Fund Subsidy Scheme, along with interest accrued thereon. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner is an agricultural farmer who, being motivated by the Poultry Venture Capital Fund Subsidy Scheme floated by NABARD in the year 2011 for economic upliftment of poor farmers in rural areas, sought to establish a commercial poultry unit. (ii) Upon approval of the project, a loan of Rs. 3,01,320/- was sanctioned in his favour by the Balasore-Bhadrak Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 19.07.2012, against a total project cost of Rs. 4,72,229/-, the remaining amount being invested by the petitioner from his own sources. The loan was repayable in 20 quarterly instalments over a period of five years. Under the Scheme, the petitioner was entitled to a subsidy of Rs. 1,12,000/- from Opposite Party No. 1, to be claimed by the financing bank after release of the first instalment of the loan. Although the loan was sanctioned on 19.02.2012 and the first instalment was released on 30.11.2012, the subsidy claim was submitted by the financing bank only on 04.11.2016, after closure of the petitioner’s loan account on 14.06.2016. (iii) After availing the loan, the petitioner repaid the same and, upon clearance of the entire loan amount, his loan account was closed by the financing bank on 14.06.2016. (iv) Under the Scheme, the subsidy application was required to be forwarded by the financing bank through its controlling office, namely the Odisha State Central Cooperative Bank, however, the financing bank forwarded the claim directly to NABARD. (v) Upon receipt of the subsidy claim on 04.11.2016, NABARD, by e-mail dated 09.11.2016, required the financing bank to submit the claim through the controlling office, whereafter no further action was taken by the bank. (vi) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations before Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 and the Chairman of the Odisha State Central Cooperative Bank, Bhubaneswar. (v) Upon receipt of the subsidy claim on 04.11.2016, NABARD, by e-mail dated 09.11.2016, required the financing bank to submit the claim through the controlling office, whereafter no further action was taken by the bank. (vi) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations before Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 and the Chairman of the Odisha State Central Cooperative Bank, Bhubaneswar. (vii) Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8530 of 2019, which was disposed of on 27.07.2021 with a direction to Opposite Party No. 1 to consider the petitioner’s pending representation within a period of four months. Pursuant thereto, Opposite Party No. 1 rejected the petitioner’s claim by order dated 11.11.2021. (viii) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the said order dated 11.11.2021. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) The petitioner contended that under the Scheme he was entitled to a subsidy of Rs. 1,12,000/- from Opposite Party No. 1 and that the subsidy claim was required to be made by the financing bank after release of the first instalment of the loan. He further contended that although the loan was sanctioned on 19.02.2012 and the first instalment was released on 30.11.2012, the subsidy claim was submitted by the financing bank only on 04.11.2016, after closure of his loan account on 14.06.2016. The petitioner submitted that after availing the loan, he diligently repaid the same and upon clearance of the entire loan amount, his loan account was closed by the financing bank on 14.06.2016. (ii) The petitioner asserted that as per the Scheme, the subsidy application was required to be forwarded by the financing bank through its controlling office, namely the Odisha State Central Cooperative Bank, but the financing bank directly forwarded the subsidy claim to NABARD. The petitioner contended that upon receipt of the subsidy claim on 04.11.2016, NABARD, by e-mail dated 09.11.2016, required the financing bank to submit the claim through the controlling office, but the financing bank failed to take any steps thereafter. (iii) The petitioner contended that on perusal of the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No. 2, it is evident that Opposite Party Nos. (iii) The petitioner contended that on perusal of the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No. 2, it is evident that Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 failed to forward the subsidy claim in accordance with the Scheme and that Opposite Party No. 1 also failed to ensure timely submission of the subsidy claim in accordance with the prescribed procedure. (iv) The petitioner asserted that Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have not controverted his claim to subsidy in their counter affidavits and that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the subsidy claim was not submitted in accordance with the Scheme and that the Scheme had been closed by NABARD on 30.06.2021. (v) The petitioner contended that Opposite Party No. 2, while filing its counter affidavit, has not disputed his entitlement to subsidy and has only raised a technical objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by relying on a judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2020, which, according to the petitioner, has no application to the facts of the present case. (vi) The petitioner asserted that Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have not attributed any delay, laches, or negligence to him and that submission and processing of the subsidy claim was entirely the responsibility of the financing bank and NABARD, in which he had no role to play. (vii) The petitioner contended that he cannot be deprived of the subsidy amount of Rs.1,12,000/- due to the lapses of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 and that he is entitled to interest accrued on the said amount. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY No.1: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party, as the controlling bank, namely the Odisha State Co-operative Bank Ltd., has not been impleaded. (ii) The Opposite Party No.1 contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in raising his claim. (ii) The Opposite Party No.1 contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in raising his claim. (iii) The Opposite Party No.1 contended that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present writ proceeding and that the petitioner may, if so advised, seek appropriate remedy before the competent forum. (iv) The Opposite Party No.1 contended that after sanction of the loan, the first instalment was released on 30.11.2012 and that under the Scheme, the subsidy claim was required to be submitted immediately thereafter through the controlling bank, namely the Odisha State Co-operative Bank Ltd. It was contended that the subsidy claim was forwarded directly to NABARD only on 04.11.2016, after closure of the loan account, resulting in a delay of about four years and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, and that the subsidy scheme itself was closed by the Government of India on 30.06.2021. (v) The Opposite Party No.1 contended that pursuant to disposal of W.P.(C) No. 8530 of 2019 on 27.07.2021, Opposite Party No. 1 considered the petitioner’s representation and passed a reasoned and speaking order on 11.11.2021 within the time stipulated by this Court, and that no relief could be granted thereafter in view of the closure of the scheme and non-compliance with its guidelines. (vi) The Opposite Party No.1 contended that NABARD is only an implementing or pass-through agency of the Government of India under the subsidy scheme, has no direct role in sanctioning subsidy to beneficiaries, and can process subsidy claims only if they are submitted in accordance with the Scheme guidelines, within the stipulated timeline, and subject to availability of funds. It was contended that advisories were issued to the financing bank to submit the claim through the controlling bank, but the procedural requirements were not complied with. (vii) The Opposite Party No.1 contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY No.2: 5. (vii) The Opposite Party No.1 contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY No.2: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 68 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, which the petitioner has failed to avail. (ii) Opposite Party No. 2 contended that in view of the judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2020, a writ petition against a cooperative society is not maintainable and, therefore, the present writ petition against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 is liable to be dismissed. (iii) Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that the petitioner has wrongly impleaded the Branch Manager as Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 instead of impleading the Chief Executive Officer of the Balasore-Bhadrak Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., who is the competent authority under the Odisha Cooperative Societies Rules to represent the Bank in legal proceedings. (iv) Opposite Party No. 2 contended that the allegations of negligence against the Bank are unfounded and baseless and that the Bank had forwarded the subsidy claim proposal to NABARD by letter dated 04.11.2016 along with claims relating to multiple beneficiaries. (v) Opposite Party No. 2 contended that the loan account of the petitioner was closed on 14.06.2016 and that the Bank has not committed any act contrary to law or the provisions governing the subsidy scheme. (vi) Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and the lack of maintainability of the writ petition, the writ application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. V. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record. 7. The issue arising for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim release of subsidy under the Poultry Venture Capital Fund Subsidy Scheme. 8. V. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record. 7. The issue arising for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim release of subsidy under the Poultry Venture Capital Fund Subsidy Scheme. 8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the subsidy scheme in question is a policy measure framed by the Government of India and implemented through NABARD. NABARD functions only as an implementing agency for processing subsidy claims in accordance with the guidelines of the Scheme and subject to availability of funds. 9. It is not in dispute that under the Scheme, the subsidy claim was required to be submitted by the financing bank immediately after release of the first instalment of the loan and routed through the controlling bank, namely the Odisha State Co-operative Bank Ltd., along with the requisite documents. 10. From the record, it emerges that although the first instalment of the loan was released in favour of the petitioner on 30.11.2012, the subsidy claim was forwarded to NABARD only on 04.11.2016. The claim was submitted directly by the financing bank without routing it through the controlling bank and after closure of the petitioner’s loan account on 14.06.2016. The delay of nearly four years in submission of the subsidy claim and the deviation from the prescribed procedure are not in dispute. 11. The materials on record further disclose that upon receipt of the subsidy claim, NABARD, by e-mail dated 09.11.2016, advised the financing bank to resubmit the claim through the controlling bank in accordance with the Scheme. However, no material has been placed before this Court to show that the subsidy claim was thereafter resubmitted in conformity with the prescribed procedure during the subsistence of the Scheme. 12. The petitioner has contended that he cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses or omissions on the part of the financing bank or other authorities. While this Court is not unmindful of the hardship pleaded by the petitioner, however, a subsidy under a government scheme does not constitute a vested or indefeasible right and can be claimed only in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the policy under which it is granted. 13. While this Court is not unmindful of the hardship pleaded by the petitioner, however, a subsidy under a government scheme does not constitute a vested or indefeasible right and can be claimed only in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the policy under which it is granted. 13. Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing release of subsidy in disregard of the mandatory stipulations of the Scheme or after the Scheme has ceased to operate. 14. It is also a matter of record that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8530 of 2019, Opposite Party No. 1 considered the petitioner’s representation and passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 11.11.2021. The said order records that the subsidy scheme stood closed by the Government of India with effect from 30.06.2021 and that in view of the procedural non-compliance and closure of the Scheme, the subsidy claim could not be entertained. This Court does not find any perversity, arbitrariness, or illegality in the decision-making process reflected in the said order. 15. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have not disputed his entitlement to subsidy cannot, by itself, confer a right to disbursement once the Scheme has been closed and the mandatory procedural requirements have not been complied with within the operative period of the Scheme. VI. CONCLUSION: 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right to claim release of subsidy under the Poultry Venture Capital Fund Subsidy Scheme and that the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.