Judgment : Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) Petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction for above stated actions of Respondent No-1 to Respondent No-2 amounting to execute inaction owing to which petitioner is suffering irreparable losses, mandate may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents No.1 to respondent No-2 to release the subsidy amounting to Rs 10 lac only in a time bund manner.; (b) Respondent No-1 to respondent No-2 may kindly be directed to adhere to the contents of annexure P-2 in letter and spirit, that is to release the subsidy of Rs Ten lac in a time bound manner. (c) Pass such other or further order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, as also Scheme framed by the respondents. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner was issued a letter of intent for establishing a horticulture project, under the “Development of Commercial Horticulture through Production and Post Harvest Management” Scheme. This was done way back in the year 2006. Petitioner did set up his project under the Scheme, after availing financial assistance from proforma respondent No.3. For availing benefit, petitioner filed claims for release of subsidy. Regretfully the same could not be processed. This fact stands admitted by respondent No.2 in Para -11 of the counter affidavit. There are allegations and counter allegations on both sides, with regard to completion of formalities. The factual aspect needs reconsideration. Be that as it may, petitioner’s right and entitlement of benefits under the Scheme, for which purpose, letter of intent was issued in the year 2006, cannot be disputed. 4. Petitioner is a poor villager. After obtaining assistance from respondent No.3-bank, he established a Poly House Unit within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Regretfully, for one reason or the other, his case could not be processed and subsidy released in his favour resulting into heavy financial losses. Significantly, subsidy to be released in favour of the petitioner, by respondent No.2, was to be adjusted against the loan, availed by him from respondent No.3. 5. Regretfully, for one reason or the other, his case could not be processed and subsidy released in his favour resulting into heavy financial losses. Significantly, subsidy to be released in favour of the petitioner, by respondent No.2, was to be adjusted against the loan, availed by him from respondent No.3. 5. Interest of justice would be met if petitioner’s prayer, as prayed for today, is accepted. As such, present petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No.2 to process the petitioner’s case for subsidy, in terms of the Scheme; letter of intent dated 8.8.2006 (Annexure P-2); and the terms of Contract, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. This be positively done within a period of three weeks from the date of production of copy of the order. The amount of subsidy, which the petitioner would be held entitled for, shall be released directly into the bank account with respondent No.3, within a period of two weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. All other points are left open, reserving liberty to agitate the same afresh on the same cause of action.