Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) To quash and set aside annexure P-9 and to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No.2 to release the subsidy amounting to Rs.10 (substituted by Rs.10 lacs vide order dated 09.11.2016) in a time bound 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.” 2. Briefly stated, facts as emerge from record are that the petitioner, who is an agriculturist, applied for Letter of Intent (for short ‘LOI’) under the “Development of Commercial Horticulture through Production and Post Harvest Management of National Horticulture Board”, Scheme, (for short ‘Scheme’) for starting the Project, i.e., Green House for growing agriculture and horticulture produces. Total cost of which was Rs.48 lacs, out of which petitioner had to pay Rs.18 lacs and remaining amount of Rs.30 lacs was to be financed by the Bank. Petitioner averred that the said application for LOI was approved by the respondent vide letter dated 08.08.2006 (Annexure P-2), which was valid for one year only. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 for granting of term loan of Rs.30 lacs, who, after verifying that all the formalities have been completed by the petitioner, sanctioned the term loan and then disbursed the same by Central Bank of India on different dates in his favour. As per terms and conditions of LOI, petitioner was entitled to the subsidy on the loan amount to be released by respondent No.2 within two years. 3. Records further reveal that the aforesaid business could not run successfully and due to financial constrains petitioner failed to repay the loan as per the agreement and as such default occurred for not paying the monthly installments. Accordingly, vide notice dated 03.10.2011 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI’ Act) Central Bank of India issued notice to petitioner for taking possession of the immovable property on account of non-repayment of loan amount. Accordingly, vide notice dated 03.10.2011 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI’ Act) Central Bank of India issued notice to petitioner for taking possession of the immovable property on account of non-repayment of loan amount. It also emerges from the pleadings that petitioner conveyed the respondents that due to financial constrains he was/is not in a position to pay the total loan amount in one go and prayed for some reasonable installments to clear the same and thereafter petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.20,98,125/- with the aforesaid Bank. Communication made to the aforesaid Bank by the petitioner also suggests that he was unable to repay the loan amount since he did not receive subsidy from respondent No.1 in terms of LOI (Annexure P-2). 4. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition bearing CWP No.2310 of 2012-A, which was disposed of on 29.4.2014 with the direction to respondent No.2 to process the petitioner’s case for subsidy, in terms of LOI (Annexure P-2); and the terms of Contract, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. While passing aforesaid order, this Court also held that amount of subsidy, to which the petitioner would be held entitled, shall be released directly into his bank account with respondent No.3. 5. Pursuant to directions given in the aforesaid judgment dated 29th April, 2014, respondents No.2 and 3 passed fresh order dated 14th/19th August, 2014 (Annexure P-9), impugned herein, perusal where of suggests that same was passed after hearing the petitioner personally. But fact remains that vide aforesaid impugned order respondent No.3 rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of subsidy on the ground that he was unable to place on record any document suggestive of the fact that he had completed Project in terms of LOI (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondents. 6. Petitioner, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order dated 14th/19th August, 2014 passed by respondent No.3, approached this Court by way of instant writ petition praying therein the reliefs as reproduced above. 7. 6. Petitioner, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order dated 14th/19th August, 2014 passed by respondent No.3, approached this Court by way of instant writ petition praying therein the reliefs as reproduced above. 7. Shri Ajay Vaidya, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring to Annexure P-9, impugned order passed by respondent No.3, vehemently argued that same is not in consonance with the directions contained in judgment dated 29th April, 2014 passed by this Court in CWP No.2310 of 2012-A and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Vaidya further contended that aforesaid impugned order passed by the authority is patently illegal and contrary to record because there was no question, if any, to submit completion certificate by the petitioner because bare perusal of LOI (Annexure P-2) suggests that the petitioner had completed the Project and he was entitled to the subsidy in terms of Scheme. While concluding his arguments, Mr.Vaidya forcefully contended that bare perusal of impugned order passed by respondent No.3 suggests that there is no application of mind and case of petitioner for grant of subsidy has been turned down on hyper-technical grounds and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside and petitioner is required to be granted subsidy in light of LOI (Annexure P-2). 8. Mr.L.S. Thakur, learned counsel representing respondents No.2 and 3, supported the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 by stating that a bare perusal of the same suggests that despite ample opportunities, petitioner failed to furnish requisite information/documents to enable the respondents to process his case for subsidy claim. Shri Thakur, with a view to refute the aforesaid contention put forth on behalf of the counsel representing the petitioner that Project was complete in all respect, invited the attention of this Court to the reply filed by respondents No.2 and 3 to demonstrate that Project in question was never completed and same was sold to some other party without informing respondents No.2 and 3. He further stated that since no joint inspection, as per criteria laid down in the column could be conducted for assessment of subsidy, there was no question, if any, to release subsidy as is being claimed by the petitioner and in the aforesaid background he sought dismissal of the petition with costs. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 10. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 10. Careful perusal of LOI (Annexure P-2) suggests that in response to application/proposal submitted by present petitioner, letter of expression was issued under the Scheme for the activity proposed in the application. But same suggests that its scope was limited to merely for approval of activity proposed in the application and in no manner it could be termed as endorsement or approval of the Project. Close scrutiny of documents referred to hereinabove also suggests that LOI issued in favour of present petitioner was subject to certain conditions which are reproduced hereinbelow: “(i) This LOI is being issued on the condition that the proposed activity is a completely new activity and it is not for any pre-existing activity or for any component thereof. (ii) The LOI will be valid for one year from the date of issue. The Promoter should accordingly approach a Bank/FI of his choice immediately after obtaining the LOI from NHB and get his term loan sanctioned by the Bank/FI. (iii) Mere grant of LOI by NHB does not in any way obviate the responsibility of the Bank/FI to carefully scrutinize the project proposal. The Bank/FI shall be solely responsible for financial appraisal of the project. Therefore, the Bank/FI while sanctioning the project proposal has to cautiously examine/evaluate and appraise the proposal thoroughly after conducting a detailed field inspection to ensure the technical feasibility & financial viability of the project. The Bank after due field verification must ensure that this proposal is not for any pre-existing activity but is in respect of a completely new activity as proposed in the LOI application/DPR submitted by the beneficiary. (iv) The project should, however, be implemented within a period of two years from the date of sanction of loan. The payment of back-ended subsidy will be made after project has been successfully completed according to the term and conditions of the loan/or as per the approved feasibility cum project report, as the case may be. (v) The projects will not be eligible for NHB subsidy under this scheme where cultivation of seasonal/short duration horticulture crops is envisaged in open field. (v) The projects will not be eligible for NHB subsidy under this scheme where cultivation of seasonal/short duration horticulture crops is envisaged in open field. (vi) Mere issuance of LOI will not guarantee the grant of subsidy to the beneficiary unless the proposal is implemented in accordance with the information given in the application of LOI/Detailed Project Report (DPR) and within overall guidelines of the scheme. Any deviation in implementation of project will lead to rejection of proposal for which promoter will be solely responsible. (vii) The quantum of subsidy will be decided after taking into account the recommendation of the Joint Inspection Team as constituted by NHB and on the basis of cost norms of NHB in respect of different admissible items of expenditure in the project. However, in case there is a variation between the cost as appraised by Bank and the cost norms of NHB, the lowest cost will be considered. In addition, NHB will also have the right to restrict admissible components and expenditure thereon to such limit as may be considered justified. (viii) The project will not be eligible to receive subsidy under NHB schemes in case benefit of subsidy/grant-in-aid from other agencies of Govt. of India has been availed/is proposed to be availed. (ix) The Board reserves the right to cancel the LOI at any time in case there has been misrepresentation by the Promoter OR any information furnished by the Promoter is found false or there has been concealment of any facts. (x) NHB reserves the right to modify, add and decide any terms & condition to this LOI without assigning any reason thereof. (xi) NHB’s interpretation on various terms & conditions of LOI will be final.” 11. Clause-iv of the LOI mentioned hereinabove suggests that Project was required to be implemented within a period of two years from the date of sanction of loan and thereafter payment of back ended subsidy, if any, was to be made, that too, after successful completion of Project according to terms and conditions of the loan and was as per the approved feasibility-cum-project report. 12. Further clause-v clearly suggests that Project could not be granted NHB for subsidy in the Scheme where cultivation of seasonal/short duration horticulture crops is/was envisaged in open field. 13. 12. Further clause-v clearly suggests that Project could not be granted NHB for subsidy in the Scheme where cultivation of seasonal/short duration horticulture crops is/was envisaged in open field. 13. Most importantly clause-vi suggests that mere issuance of LOI will not guarantee the grant of subsidy to the beneficiary unless the proposal is implemented in accordance with the information given in the application of LOI. 14. Finally quantum of subsidy in terms of Scheme was to be decided by joint inspection Team after taking into account the work done by the applicant. 15. Clause-ix of the LOI further gives liberty to respondents to cancel the LOI at any time in case of misrepresentation/concealment of facts by the promoter. 16. Minute reading of aforesaid LOI clearly suggests that completion of Project is condition precedent for grant of subsidy. Similarly, quantum of subsidy is required to be determined by Joint Inspection Team which would visit the Project site and make recommendation qua the admissibility of subsidy. 17. Similarly, condition No.(iv) suggests that Project should be implemented within a period of two years from the date of sanction of loan. 18. This Court with a view to test the correctness and genuineness of submissions having been made on behalf of petitioner that the Project was complete examined LOI (Annexure P-2), but it nowhere suggests that petitioner had completed the Project within stipulated time and in this regard he had furnished information/claim with the respondents for grant of subsidy. Rather, perusal of Annexure P-2 suggests that on the application having been filed by petitioner, LOI was issued to him in token of approval for activity proposed in the application and in no manner it could be termed as an approval of the Project cost indicated in the application. Conditions contained in LOI (Annexure P-2), which have been reproduced hereinabove, itself suggest that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to comply with certain conditions before making himself eligible for grant of subsidy in terms of Scheme, referred hereinabove. 19. Apart from LOI (Annexure P-2), there is no document available on record by the petitioner suggestive of the fact that pursuant to LOI issued vide order dated 8.8.2006, Project was completed within stipulated time and thereafter same was examined by Joint Inspection Team, which had to recommend the case for grant of subsidy. 19. Apart from LOI (Annexure P-2), there is no document available on record by the petitioner suggestive of the fact that pursuant to LOI issued vide order dated 8.8.2006, Project was completed within stipulated time and thereafter same was examined by Joint Inspection Team, which had to recommend the case for grant of subsidy. All other documents, save and except Annexure P-2, placed on record by the petitioner relate to communication with the Central Bank of India from where petitioner had availed loan to the tune of Rs.30 lacs for setting up the Project. Hence, this Court has all the reasons to conclude that at no point of time petitioner completed the Project in terms of Annexure P-2, as such, he was rightly not granted subsidy. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce para-3 of preliminary submission and para-6 of preliminary objections to the reply filed by respondents No.2 and 3, which reads as under: “Preliminary Submissions: 3. That it is respectfully submitted that Subsidy is a grant from the government and any citizen cannot claim a right to get subsidy. The sanction and disbursement of the subsidy is strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the scheme and also the Letter of Intent which are as follows: •?The LOI will be valid for one year from the date of issue. The promoter should approach the Bank/FI of his choice immediately after obtaining the LOI from NHB and get his term loan sanctioned by the bank/FI. •?Mere grant of LOI by NHB does not in any way obviate the responsibility of the Bank/FI to carefully scrutinize the project proposal. The Bank/FI shall be solely responsible for financial appraisal of the project. Therefore, the Bank/FI while sanctioning the proposal has to cautiously examine/evaluate and appraise the proposal thoroughly after conducting a detailed field inspection to ensure the technical feasibility and financial viability of the project. •?The project should, however, be implemented within a period of two years from the date of sanction of loan. The payment of back-ended subsidy will disbursed after project has been successfully completed according to the term and conditions of the loan/or as per the approved feasibility cum project report, as the case may be. •?The project should, however, be implemented within a period of two years from the date of sanction of loan. The payment of back-ended subsidy will disbursed after project has been successfully completed according to the term and conditions of the loan/or as per the approved feasibility cum project report, as the case may be. •?Mere issuance of LOI will not guarantee the grant of subsidy to the beneficiary unless the proposal is implemented in accordance with the information given in the application of LOI/Detailed Project Report (DPR) and within overall guidelines of the scheme. Any deviation in implementation of project will lead to rejection of proposal for which promoter will be solely responsible. •?NHB reserves the right to modify, add and delete any terms and conditions to the LOI without assigning any reason thereof. •?Bank/FI are advised to furnished the details as per operational guidelines to our State office immediately after release of full amount of term loan and completion of the project for conducting joint inspection and consideration of subsidy.” “Preliminary Objections: 6. In compliance of the directions passed by this Hon’ble Court, the Petitioner was given due opportunity to represent his case for subsidy along with supporting documents before answering Respondent twice. During personal hearing, Petitioner informed that the project work was not functional since long and he has sold out the assets of the project and the project is now abandoned. It is stated that neither the answering Respondent nor the bank was informed about the disposing of assets. As such joint inspection as per the criteria laid down was not possible for assessment of subsidy and thereby the case of the petitioner was duly rejected in accordance to the guidelines. Further, as per the term loan account provided by the petitioner, it was evident that the project was irregular in payment of installment since beginning and due to which his loan account was declared NPA. As per the guidelines, projects with NPA account are not considered with back end subsidy and the same was duly communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 19th Aug, 2014 and the same is annexed as “ANNEXURE R-6”. Further, the petitioner has deliberately not made Central Bank of India party to these proceedings for his oblique motives. Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed at preliminary stage.” 20. Further, the petitioner has deliberately not made Central Bank of India party to these proceedings for his oblique motives. Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed at preliminary stage.” 20. Reply filed by respondents clearly suggests that Project was required to be implemented within a period of two years from the date of sanction of loan and thereafter only payment of back ended subsidy could be disbursed after successful completion of Project in accordance with terms and conditions set out in LOI issued at the time of initial approval. It emerges from the reply filed by the respondents that after issuance of directions by this Court in CWP No.2310 of 2012-A, various opportunities were given to the petitioner to furnish documents in support of his claim, which were essential for taking the joint inspection, but same were not furnished, as a result of which, no assessment of quantum of subsidy could be made by Joint Inspection Team as prescribed in LOI. It also emerges from the record that even during personal hearing having been afforded to the petitioner, he himself informed the respondents that Project work was not functional since long and as such he sold out the assets of the Project and the Project is now abandoned. But this Court sees no documents available on record suggestive of the fact that in this regard information, if any, was ever sent to the respondents. Perusal of communication dated 14th/19th August, 2014 (Annexure R-6) placed on record further suggests that as per own submission of petitioner that he had obtained Term Loan Account from bank i.e. Central Bank of India, he was irregular in re-payment of installments since beginning and due to his inconsistent default, loan account was declared Non Performing Assets (for short `NPA’) vide notice dated 3rd October, 2011 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. Since loan account of petitioner was declared NPA, case of the petitioner for back ended subsidy could not be considered in terms of general guidelines issued for all the Schemes vide Annexure R-4. Otherwise also subsidy, if any, being concession, cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather it is the prerogative of the State to extend the benefit of subsidy. 21. Otherwise also subsidy, if any, being concession, cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather it is the prerogative of the State to extend the benefit of subsidy. 21. In this regard reliance is placed on Pashimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others vs. Adarsh Textiles and Another, (2014)16 SCC 212 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “26. It can be culled out from order dated 14.6.2006 that the State Government intended the benefit to be extended to power-loom 'weavers' alike farmers. The activity of manufacturing textile is generally understood as the weaving of such textile and man who is engaged in such power-loom activity is known as weaver. Weaving means: to form a fabric by interlacing yarn on a loom. It also means the method of pattern of weaving or the structure of a woven fabric, as observed by this Court in Ess Dee Carpet Enterprises v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 461 . The State Government thus, never intended the benefit to be given to big industries like HV-2 industries. In the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Commission to consult the State Government before passing clarification order dated 14-15/9/2006 while applying its order dated 11.7.2006 to HV-2 consumers. When the State Government has written to the Commission on 6.10.2006, thereafter there was no justification for the Commission not to recall the clarification issued on 14-15/9/2006 as it was the prerogative of the State Government to extend the benefit of subsidy to a class or particular class of consumers and subsidy being a concession could not have been enforced as a matter of right. The Commission was bound to act as per such directives of State Government. (p.220) (Emphasis supplied) 22. After carefully perusing the pleadings as well as documents made available on record, we are fully convinced and satisfied that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions contained in the LOI (Annexure P-2) and at no point of time he furnished certificate of completion of the Project from the borrower bank and as such his case was rightly not considered by respondents No.2 and 3 for grant of back ended subsidy in terms of Scheme referred hereinabove. It is admitted case of the petitioner that due to financial constrains he was unable to run the Project and he sold the same to other person. It is admitted case of the petitioner that due to financial constrains he was unable to run the Project and he sold the same to other person. It is also clear from the impugned order that the petitioner’s account was declared NPA on account of non-repayment of loan advanced for the completion of the Project. 23. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussions made hereinabove, we do not see any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 14th/19th August, 2014 (Annexure P-9) passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner and as such this Court sees no occasion to interfere in the present case by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction, as prayed for, by the petitioner in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 24. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.