1 CGHC010333742026 2026:CGHC:38547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4435 of 2026 1 - Bhuvneshwar Lal Kurre S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Aged About 63 Years R/o Chote Sipat, Malkharouda, Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Collector Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Indian Bank Through Branch Manager, Malkharouda Branch, Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ishan Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records with regards to case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court. Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances, may also be provided to the petitioner. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.09.02 11:15:47 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had availed a loan facility of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the respondent- Bank on 07.03.2012 for the purpose of carrying on his business. The said loan was sanctioned under the Pradhan Mantri Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), a scheme under which eligible beneficiaries are entitled to subsidy subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including timely repayment of the loan. The petitioner duly repaid the entire loan amount within a period of three years and, having fulfilled the requisite conditions under the scheme, became entitled to a subsidy of Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand only). As per the records available to the petitioner, the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was credited/received in respect of the petitioner on 11.03.2022. However, the petitioner was neither informed about such receipt nor was the said amount made available to him. Subsequently, the subsidy amount was returned, without any notice or intimation to the petitioner. The petitioner had been repeatedly approaching the respondent-Bank from the year 2020 to 2022 for release of the subsidy amount. Despite repeated visits, requests and representations, the petitioner was not provided the subsidy amount to which he was entitled under the scheme. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conduct, the petitioner approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 27.09.2023 seeking appropriate relief. However, the petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that the grievance did not fall within the category of "services" contemplated under the Consumer Protection law. Petitioner also approached the appropriate authorities by lodging F.I.R./complaints in respect of the alleged misbehaviour and harassment suffered by him. On one 3 occasion, the petitioner was allegedly assaulted during court proceedings. A further complaint/F.I.R. was also lodged against the concerned bank officials alleging that the petitioner was physically and mentally harassed on account of his repeated demands for release of the subsidy amount. Despite the complaints/F.I.Rs. and repeated representations submitted by the petitioner before the concerned authorities, no effective action has been taken till date. The grievances of the petitioner have remained unattended and the respondent-Bank has also failed to take any effective steps for payment/release of the subsidy amount. The petitioner has exhausted all reasonable avenues available to him and has repeatedly approached the concerned authorities for redressal of his legitimate grievance. However, despite the passage of considerable time, neither has the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- been paid to the petitioner nor has any satisfactory explanation been furnished regarding the receipt, return or non-payment of the said amount. The continued inaction on the part of the respondent authorities and the respondent-Bank has caused serious prejudice and hardship to the petitioner and has resulted in denial of the benefit legitimately claimed by him under the PMEGP scheme. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsidy amount was given to the petitioner, however, subsequently the same was withdrawn without assigning any cogent and satisfactory reason. He submits that in this regard, the petitioner moved representation before the Collector, however, the same is still pending consideration since 2015. He prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to decide his representation in an expeditious manner. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the Bank has to 4 assign the reasons for withdrawal of the subsidy amount. 5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that no specific or cogent reason has been disclosed by the respondent authorities as to the circumstances in which the subsidy benefit extended to the petitioner was subsequently withdrawn. Prima facie, the respondent-Bank could not have withdrawn the subsidy benefit on its own, unless such withdrawal was supported by the applicable provisions of the scheme or by appropriate directions of the competent authority. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly having regard to the fact that the record does not disclose the circumstances or reasons which led to withdrawal/return of the subsidy amount, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the concerned authority to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law. 7. While considering the representation, the concerned authority i.e. concerned Collector shall specifically examine whether the subsidy amount once granted/credited in favour of the petitioner could have been withdrawn or returned by the respondent-Bank and, if so, under what provision or authority. In the event the authorities arrive at a conclusion that the subsidy is liable to be withdrawn, the reasons for such withdrawal shall be specifically recorded. The petitioner shall also be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing before any adverse decision is taken against him. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a copy of this order along with a copy of his representation and all relevant supporting documents before the concerned Collector/competent authority. The Collector shall 5 consider the representation of the petitioner and decide the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not made any opinion on the merits of the case and all the issues are left open to be decided by the respondent authorities independently. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash