JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on this petition are of respondent No.1 having sanctioned loan/financial assistance in favour of the petitioner for construction of agricultural go-down at village Shamna (Dungi), Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P. At the time contemporaneous to the sanctioning of financial assistance/loan to the petitioner by the respondent for the purpose aforesaid, a scheme floated by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi was in vogue. The scheme envisaged 33.33% subsidy of the capital cost up to a maximum limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. Before completion of the project, a sum of Rs.68,000/- was released by the respondents in favour of the petitioner as first installment of subsidy. The petitioner avers that he had spent an amount of Rs.5 lacs for completion or the construction of the agricultural godown. However, on a joint inspection of his purported go-down having been carried out by the respondents, the respondents not only withdrew the first installment of subsidy of Rs.68,000/- as advanced to him but also refused to afford him the balance of the subsidy releasable to him in proportion to the cost incurred by him for the construction of the agricultural go-down. A prayer is made in the writ petition that the action of the respondents in withdrawing the release of the first installment of the subsidy in the sum of Rs.68,000/- be set aside, besides directions are sought against the respondents that the subsidy amount in the per centum as now releasable to him be ordered to be released in his favour. 2. The respondents in the reply have tersely urged that the release of the subsidy on completion of the project is subject to eligibility and the coverage of the project under the scheme, besides on assessment of the project on its completion, in case it does not fall within the prescribed norms as also does not fulfill the contemplated terms and conditions, hence, it is within the domain of the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner for the release of the subsidy. 3. 3. Now for testing whether the petitioner had utilized the financial assistance advanced to him by the respondents for the purpose for which he had obtained it, inasmuch as whether he had utilized it for construction of an agricultural go-down and as such had complied with the terms and conditions for his seeking a direction from this Court to the respondent that not only the order of recalling of advance subsidy to him by the respondents is untenable, besides his being also entitled to the release of the balance amount of subsidy, it is necessary to advert to the joint inspection report appended with the reply of the respondents comprised in Annexure R-3. A perusal of Annexure R-3 as also, a perusal of the photographs appended to it which uncontrovertedly are of the purported agricultural go-down as raised/constructed by the petitioner from the financial assistance afforded to him by the respondents, forthrightly disclose that the petitioner has utilized the financial assistance for constructing a dwelling house for himself. Consequently, when the financial assistance, as advanced to him by the respondents, was for construction of agricultural storage/go-down by him, besides when he could tenably claim release of the subsidy in his favour by the respondents only in case he had been eligible to seek its disbursement in his favour, inasmuch as his having utilized the financial assistance for construction of a go-down. However, when uncontrovertedly, the inspection report as also the photographs appended to it portray that he has contrary to the terms and conditions of the scheme raised/constructed a dwelling house for himself. Consequently, when the terms and conditions, governing the release of subsidy in his favour, stand contravened, hence, the petitioner does not acquire any legal leverage to claim a direction from this Court that the respondents be directed to release the balance subsidy in his favour nor also he can claim a direction from this Court that the respondents be directed to withdraw the order calling upon him to reimburse the first installment of subsidy in the sum of Rs.68,000/-. 4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.