JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. S. Sancheti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Sishir Dutta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Paul, appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. I have also heard Mr. Subrata Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7 and Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. The Respondent No.1 through the Respondent No.2 announced a Scheme in the name and style of “Integrated Scheme of Agricultural Marketing”, (for short ‘ISAM’) wherein all schemes relating to agriculture, marketing and infrastructure were brought under one umbrella for strengthening of the agricultural sector. The ISAM was divided into five different sub-schemes which were (i) Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure (AMI) [merging existing scheme of Grameen Bhandaran Yojana (GBY) and Development/strengthening of Agriculture Marketing Infrastructure Grading and Standardization (AMIGS)]; (ii) Marketing Research and Information Network (MRIN); (iii) Strengthening of Agmark Grading Facilities (SAGF); (iv) Agri-Business Development Facility (PDF) and (v) Choudhary Charan Singh National Institute of Agriculture Marketing (NIAM). 3. The Respondent No. 3 merged the Scheme for development /strengthening of Agriculture Marketing Infrastructure Grading and Standardization (AMIGS) and Grameen Bhandaran Yojana (GBY) into one Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure (AMI) under which necessary Operational Guidelines, 2014 were also issued. In that regard, the Respondent No.5 issued a Circular No.71/DoR 22/2014 under Reference No. NB.DoR.GSS/394/AMI-1/2014-15 dated 25.04.2014 intimating to all schedule commercial banks/all schedule (Primary) Urban Cooperative banks, all RRBs/ADFCs/SCBs/SCARDB’s regarding the guidelines. 4. The Petitioner who had a plot of land admeasuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 18 Lechas covered by Dag No. 743 of P. P. Patta No. 345 of village Hirapara, Mouza Shyambari, Dhula, District Darrang, Assam, being encouraged intended to set up a rural godown at village Hirapara under the ISAM and accordingly, the Petitioner approached the Respondent No.7 for availing a term loan which was sanctioned by the Respondent No.7 vide the letter No. CB/AMT-I/2016-17/345A dated 11.11.2016 wherein the Petitioner's application for term loan amounting to Rs.80,00,000/- was duly sanctioned for setting up a rural godown at village Hirapara, Mouza Shyambari, Dhula, District Darrang at a total cost of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. 5. The Petitioner received the first installment/disbursement of the loan on 29.12.2016. 5. The Petitioner received the first installment/disbursement of the loan on 29.12.2016. To the information of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.7 applied for release of the advance subsidy to the Respondent No.6 with all the required documents on 28.03.2017 i.e. within 90 days from the date of release of the first installment as per Clause 3.10.1 of the Operational Guidelines. The Petitioner further mentioned in the writ petition that the Respondent No.7 received the advance subsidy on 25.10.2017 from the Respondent No.6 vide letter dated 25.10.2017 being an amount of Rs.16,03,800/- which is 50% of the entire subsidy amount for and on behalf of the Petitioner which was kept in a separate subsidy reverse fund account being Account No.30074246297 maintained by Respondent No.7 in its South Guwahati Branch. 6. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner duly intimated the concerned Respondent Authorities about the completion of the godown on 17.07.2017 and the date of commercial production would be 03.07.2017. The Respondent No.7 thereupon, applied for release of the final subsidy with the Respondent No.6 on 12.01.2018 as per Annexure XIII of the Operational Guidelines and requested for a joint inspection of the project. The Respondent No.6 along with the Respondent No.7 and other officials conducted a joint inspection of the godown of the Petitioner on 27.02.2018 whereby certain observations were given to the Respondent No.6 for compliance by the Petitioner and accordingly the Petitioner complied with the said observations immediately. 7. The Petitioner thereupon came to learn that steps were being taken for recalling of the advance subsidy amount of Rs.16,03,800/- by the Respondent No.6 from the Respondent No.7 and this was intimated to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.7 on 29.10.2018 vide an email of the said date and the reason for recalling of the advance subsidy amount was that the claim for subsidy was submitted to the Respondent No.6 by the Respondent No.7 only on 28.03.2017 which as per the ISAM guidelines was found to be after the cut-off date i.e. 31.01.2017 of submission of the proposal to the Respondent No.6. 8. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition thereby seeking a direction upon the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 not to give any effect to the cut- off date as mentioned in the circular dated 05.12.2016 issued by the Respondent Nos. 8. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition thereby seeking a direction upon the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 not to give any effect to the cut- off date as mentioned in the circular dated 05.12.2016 issued by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, in the case of the petitioner, as far as receiving and sanctioning of the advance subsidy claims by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are concerned as the same was inconsistent with Clause 3.10.1 and Clause 4.14 of the Operational Guidelines of ISAM. Further to that, the Petitioner also sought for directions to the effect that the Operational Guidelines of ISAM shall have overriding effect over the circulars issued by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 authorities in the light of the fact that there is no alteration and amendment in the time limit set out in the operational guidelines of the ISAM as far as receiving and sanctioning of all such advance subsidy claims by NABARD under the Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure (AMI) Sub-Scheme of ISAM is concerned. INTERIM ORDER PASSED: 9. Upon filing of the writ petition, this Court had issued notice returnable by 6 (six) weeks and further directed as an interim measure that the Respondents shall not take any steps for realization of the advance subsidy amount credited into the account of the Petitioner. The interim order continues till date. AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS: 10. The Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein at Paragraph No.9, it was mentioned that the Petitioner was not eligible beneficiary as per the NABARD circular dated 09.12.2016 inasmuch as the subsidy will be available to those which are received by NABARD Regional Office on or before 31.01.2017. It was further mentioned that in the instant case, the subsidy claim was forwarded by the Respondent No.7 vide letter dated 28.03.2017 which was received by NABARD, Assam Regional Office on 29.03.2017 and the claim so submitted was beyond the cut-off date and as such, the Petitioner's claim for subsidy was evidently not maintainable. It was further mentioned that the NABARD inadvertently had recommended release of advance subsidy of Rs.16,03,800/- on 25.10.2017 through e-payment and conveyed the same to the SBI, LHO, Dispur vide letter dated 25.10.2017. It was further mentioned that the NABARD inadvertently had recommended release of advance subsidy of Rs.16,03,800/- on 25.10.2017 through e-payment and conveyed the same to the SBI, LHO, Dispur vide letter dated 25.10.2017. However, the High Power Committee during its review meeting held on 25.09.2018 decided to consider the claim ineligible and the Head Office vide its email dated 17.09.2018 conveyed ineligibility of the claim as it was received on 29.03.2017 after the cut-off date i.e. 31.01.2017. It was further mentioned that the advance subsidy kept in “Subsidy Reserve Fund A/C” of the concerned beneficiary by the SBI was recalled by the NABARD vide a letter dated 16.10.2018 which was again followed by another letter dated 05.11.2018. It was also mentioned that the advance subsidy so recalled was not refunded by the SBI till the time of the writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 11. The Respondent No.7 also filed an affidavit-in-opposition and in the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was categorically admitted that the term loan was sanctioned by the Respondent No. 7 in favour of the Petitioner on 11.11.2016 for construction of a rural godown in Dhula, Darrang, Assam and the first installment of the term loan was disbursed on 29.12.2016 and in total consonance with clause 3.10.1 of the Operational Guidelines of ISAM, the claim for release of advance subsidy was submitted/applied for by the Respondent No.7 with the Respondent No. 6 on 28.03.2017 which period is well within the lock in period of 90 days as stipulated in Clause 3.10.1 of the Operational Guidelines of ISAM and accordingly, the Respondent No.6 released the first installment of the advance subsidy for an amount of Rs.16,03,800/- which is 50% of the entire subsidy amount under the covering letter dated 25.10.2017. It was further mentioned that the Respondent No.7 Bank vide its letter dated 12.01.2017 had requested the petitioner to claim the subsidy from the respondent No.5 with all required documents at the earliest. The Respondent No.7 further stated that the advance subsidy amount of Rs.16,03,800/- received from the Respondent No.6 remained parked in a no lien account maintained with the Respondent No. 7 Bank. It was duly admitted in the affidavit that the Petitioner had completed the construction of the rural godown on 03.07.2017 for which purpose, the term loan was sanctioned by the Respondent No.7. It was duly admitted in the affidavit that the Petitioner had completed the construction of the rural godown on 03.07.2017 for which purpose, the term loan was sanctioned by the Respondent No.7. In that respect, an intimation letter dated 17.07.2017 was also received by the Respondent No.7 along with completion and utilisation certificate wherein the date from which the commercial operation of the unit started was mentioned. 12. The Respondent No.7 further referred to a communication dated 19-12-2017 issued by the Respondent No.2 whereby it was instructed as regards the time schedule for completion and submission of the proposal/documents for claiming the final subsidy communication that the joint monitoring inspection is required to be carried out after completion of the project. It was further requested in the said communication to expedite the matter with the concerned Regional Offices/Branches/Nodal Branches as per the list enclosed for providing the complete documents in all respects to the Regional Offices of NABARD and DMI before 31-01-2018 to enable them to conduct the Joint Monitoring Inspection for sanction/release of the final subsidy. In the said list so enclosed to the communication dated 19-12-2017, the name of the Petitioner featured at serial No.20. 13. It was further mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that on 17- 02-2018, a Joint Monitoring Committee carried out the inspection of the unit of the petitioner which consisted of three Officers from the Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7 and the report was recorded in a proforma duly signed by the three officers from the Respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7. From a further perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is seen that Respondent No. 7 categorically stated that the Petitioner herein is entitled to the subsidy of the total amount which includes the advance subsidy as well as the final subsidy. 14. This Court further takes note of that the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 have also filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the stand taken was that the cut-off date for sanction of the loan under the Scheme was 31.12.2016; the cut off date of receipt of all projects by NABARD was 31.01.2017 and the cut-off date for sanction of the advance subsidy claim by NABARD was 28.02.2017. The affidavit of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 supports the stand of the Respondent Nos. The affidavit of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 supports the stand of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 inasmuch as at paragraph No.18 of the said affidavit, it was averred that the action taken for recalling of the subsidy in the case of the Petitioner is at par with the rights empowered to the concerned Government organization as depicted in the Operational Guidelines of the Scheme and the Government’s interpretation of various terms of the guidelines from time to time is final. 15. The record further reveals that on 13.06.2025, the Respondent No.7 had filed an additional affidavit wherein it was stated that the Petitioner was sanctioned a term loan by the Respondent No.7 on 11.11.2016 for construction of the rural godown at Dhula, Darrang, Assam and the Petitioner had utilized the said loan by constructing the rural godown and had also repaid the entire loan amount to the Respondent No.7 Bank and as a consequence of which, the Term Loan Account No.36291790882 stood closed on 08.03.2024 and in that connection, a No Due Certificate was issued by the Respondent No.7 Bank dated 10.06.2025 stating that there is no outstanding liability against the said Term Loan. 16. It was also stated in the said additional affidavit that the Term Loan sanctioned by the Respondent No.7 Bank was subsidy linked and the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had released the first installment of the subsidy amount of Rs.16,03,800/- and the said amount was credited to the current account of the petitioner (CA No.37303590537) on 16.11.2017. The said amount still remains in the current account on being kept on hold by the Respondent No.7 Bank in compliance with the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by this Court and extended from time to time. 17. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 18. The points for determination which arise in the instant proceedings are: (i) Whether the Petitioner herein is entitled to the subsidy in terms with the ISAM? (ii) Whether the Petitioner if otherwise entitled to, can be deprived of the benefit of the Scheme on account of the lapses on the part of the Respondent No.7 Bank? (iii) To what relief/relief(s) the parties herein are entitled to? ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 19. (ii) Whether the Petitioner if otherwise entitled to, can be deprived of the benefit of the Scheme on account of the lapses on the part of the Respondent No.7 Bank? (iii) To what relief/relief(s) the parties herein are entitled to? ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 19. For the purpose of deciding the above mentioned points for determination, it is relevant to take note of why ISAM was formulated and its objectives behind it. The objectives as mentioned in the Operational Guidelines are: (i) To promote creation of agricultural marketing infrastructure by providing backend subsidy support to State, cooperative and private sector investments. (ii) To promote creation of scientific storage capacity and to promote pledge financing to increase farmers’ income. (iii) To promote Integrated Value Chains (confined up to the stage of primary processing only) to provide vertical integration of farmers with primary processors. (iv) To use ICT as a vehicle of extension to sensitize and orient farmers to respond to new challenges in agricultural marketing. (v) To establish a nation-wide information network system for speedy collection and dissemination of market information and data on arrivals and prices for its efficient and timely utilization by farmers and other stake holders. (vi) To support framing of grade standards and quality certification of agricultural commodities to help farmers get better and remunerative prices for their graded produce. (vii) To catalyze private investment in setting up of agribusiness projects and thereby provide assured market to producers and strengthen backward linkages of agri-business projects with producers and their groups. (viii) To undertake and promote training, research, education, extension and consultancy in the agri marketing sector. 20. On the basis of the above objectives, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had sub-divided the ISAM into five components, the details of which have already been referred to herein above. One of the components is the Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure 21. Chapter II of the Operational Guidelines of ISAM deals with Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure. Clause 3.2 deals with the Eligible Marketing Infrastructure. In terms of Clause 3.2.2.6, storage infrastructure like godowns including stand-alone silos for storage of food grains, with necessary ancillary facilities like loading, unloading, bagging facility etc. excluding railway siding are eligible for subsidy. Chapter II of the Operational Guidelines of ISAM deals with Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure. Clause 3.2 deals with the Eligible Marketing Infrastructure. In terms of Clause 3.2.2.6, storage infrastructure like godowns including stand-alone silos for storage of food grains, with necessary ancillary facilities like loading, unloading, bagging facility etc. excluding railway siding are eligible for subsidy. It further stipulates that assistance for storage infrastructure would be available on capital cost of the project including cost of allied facilities like boundary walls, internal road, internal drainage system, weighing, grading, packing, quality testing and certification, firefighting equipment etc. which are functionally required to operate the project. 22. Clause 3.3 deals with who would be the eligible beneficiaries. In terms of Clause 3.3.2, partnership/proprietary firms, companies, corporations would come within the ambit of eligible beneficiaries. 23. Clause 3.4 deals with the institutional lending. This aspect is relevant taking into account that the subsidy which is to be given is linked to institutional credit and will be available to only such projects financed by banks as mentioned in Clauses 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. 24. The Scheme further stipulates as to how the agencies would work for release of the subsidy. This aspect is stipulated in Clause 3.5. It is relevant to take note of Clause 3.5.1 which stipulates that the subsidy would be released through NABARD for projects financed by Commercial, Cooperative, Regional Rural Banks, Agricultural Development Finance Companies, State Cooperative Banks, State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks, Scheduled Urban Cooperative Banks, Scheduled Primary Cooperative Banks, North Eastern Development Financial Corporation, other institutions eligible for refinance by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development or any other financial institution such as State Financial Corporations approved by the DAC. 25. Clause 3.6 further stipulates as regards what should be the promoter’s contribution and Term Loan. In terms with Clause 3.6.1, the minimum promoter’s contribution should be 20% of the project cost. In further stipulates that the minimum Term Loan (including subsidy) to be sanctioned by the Financial Institution (FI) should be 50% of the project cost. 26. Clause 3.7 deals with the subsidy pattern. Clause 3.7.1 stipulates as regards the subsidy pattern for storage infrastructure projects. In terms with clause 3.7.1.1 and more particularly in respect to North Eastern States, Sikkim, UTs of Andaman & Nicobar and Lakshadweep Islands, hilly areas, the rate of subsidy would be 33.33% on the capital cost. 26. Clause 3.7 deals with the subsidy pattern. Clause 3.7.1 stipulates as regards the subsidy pattern for storage infrastructure projects. In terms with clause 3.7.1.1 and more particularly in respect to North Eastern States, Sikkim, UTs of Andaman & Nicobar and Lakshadweep Islands, hilly areas, the rate of subsidy would be 33.33% on the capital cost. The subsidy ceiling have also been referred to. 27. Clause 3.8 deals with release of funds and subsidy. In terms of Clause 3.8.1.2, NABARD is required to release the advanced subsidy to the Financial Institution for keeping the same in the Subsidy Reserve Fund (SRF) account of the concerned borrower(s) to be adjusted finally against the loan amount. This amount of 50% of the eligible subsidy would be released by NABARD to the Financial Institution on submission of the project profile-cum-claim form in Annexure-IX complying to the sub scheme guidelines. In terms with Clause 3.8.1.3, the final subsidy would be released to the Financial Institution by NABARD after an inspection and recommendation by the Joint Inspection Committee comprising of officers from NABARD, Financial Institutions and the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection. It is further stipulated at Clause 3.8.1.5 that the release of subsidy by NABARD to the Financial Institutions would be subject to availability of the funds from the DAC. 28. Clause 3.10 is of relevance taking into account the dispute involved in the present proceedings and as such, the said Clause is reproduced here in under: “ 3.10 TIME SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION AND COMPLETION OF PROJECT: 3.10.1 FOR DISBURSEMENT OF ADVANCE SUBSIDY: FI will within 90 days of disbursal of the first installment of loan, submit to RO, NABARD, through its controlling/nodal office a brief project profile-cum-claim form for advance subsidy in the prescribed form given in Annexure-IX along with the documents as per check list at Annexure-X . A copy of the claim form along with all documents should also be submitted to the Regional Office/Sub-Office of DMI. FI will also inform the promoter about submission of the proposal to RO, NABARD & DMI. NABARD will, every quarter, compile a list of all proposals that have not been submitted in time (viz. within 90 days) and forward the same to DMI, RO/SO. RO, NABARD will also place the matter before the State Level Banker's Committee (SLBC). FI will also inform the promoter about submission of the proposal to RO, NABARD & DMI. NABARD will, every quarter, compile a list of all proposals that have not been submitted in time (viz. within 90 days) and forward the same to DMI, RO/SO. RO, NABARD will also place the matter before the State Level Banker's Committee (SLBC). SLBC will review all such matters and ensure that such delays do not recur and the proposals are received by NABARD with in time. 3.10.2. All the projects sanctioned by Fls under the previous guidelines (applicable till 31.3.2014) will have to apply to RO, NABARD for availing advance subsidy by 30 th September, 2014. RO, NABARD will place the matter before the State Level Banker’s Committee (SLBC) to ensure submission of such claims by all the FIs before 30 th September, 2014.” 29. A perusal of the above quoted Clause would show that the Financial Institution would within 90 days of the disbursement of the first installment of loan submit to Regional Office, NABARD, through its Controlling/Nodal Office a brief project profile-cum-claim form for advance subsidy in the prescribed form given in Annexure-IX along with the documents as per check list at Annexure-X. In addition to that, a copy of the claim form along with all documents should also be submitted to the Regional Office/Sub-Office of Directorate of Marketing and Inspection. The Financial Institution would also inform the promoter about submission of the proposal to Regional Office, NABARD & Directorate of Marketing and Inspection. Thereupon, NABARD would in every quarter, compile a list of all such proposals that have not been submitted in time and forward the same to the DMI, RO/SO. The Regional Office, NABARD will also place the matter before the State Level Banker’s Committee. The State Level Banker’s Committee would review all such matters and ensure that such delays do not recur and the proposals are received by NABARD within time 30. Clause 3.10.2 however is not relevant for the purpose of the present dispute for which it is not dealt with. 31. The State Level Banker’s Committee would review all such matters and ensure that such delays do not recur and the proposals are received by NABARD within time 30. Clause 3.10.2 however is not relevant for the purpose of the present dispute for which it is not dealt with. 31. It is pertinent to mention that though Clause 3.10.1 did not specify the time limit in respect to those projects sanctioned by the Financial Institution in terms with the above guidelines which came into operation w.e.f. 12.03.2014, but subsequently, the NABARD i.e. the Respondent No.5 issued a circular No.248/DoR-64/2016-17 dated 21.10.2016 whereby it was intimated about the stoppage of the sanction of subsidy link Term Loan for new projects w.e.f. 31.10.2016. Subsequent thereto, vide another Circular No. 285/DoR-67/2016-17 dated 09.12.2016, it was intimated that the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare had vide a letter dated 05.12.2016 extended the cut-off date for sanction of subsidy link Term Loan for new projects for all category promoters in the North Eastern region by Financial Institution under the AMI/Sub-scheme of ISAM up to 31.12.2016 and accordingly it was therefore mentioned vide the said Circular dated 09.12.2016 that the cut-off date for the financing bank for submitting all such advanced subsidy claims to NABARD was extended from 30.11.2016 to 31.01.2017. 32. It is on the basis of this circular dated in 09.12.2016, the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have taken a position in respect to the case of the Petitioner that as the State Bank of India i.e. the Respondent No.7 had submitted the claim for the advance subsidy after 31.01.2017, the Petitioner’s claim for subsidy cannot be granted and as such, the Petitioner was not eligible. 33. Let this Court now deal with whether the Petitioner is eligible in terms with the Operational Guidelines, which was issued on 12.03.2014. The Petitioner would come within the ambit of eligible beneficiary in terms with Clause 3.3 and the Petitioner having taken a Term Loan from one of the banks as mentioned in Clause 3.4.1 for the construction of a storage infrastructure as mentioned in Clause 3.2.6 was otherwise eligible for the subsidy. In addition to that, the undisputed facts would show that the total cost of the project for construction of the godown in question was Rs.1,20,00,000/- and the amount of Rs.80,00,000/- was the Term Loan. In addition to that, the undisputed facts would show that the total cost of the project for construction of the godown in question was Rs.1,20,00,000/- and the amount of Rs.80,00,000/- was the Term Loan. The remaining amounts have been spent by the Petitioner and as such, the Petitioner is also eligible in terms with Clause 3.6.1 of the Operational Guidelines. 34. In terms with the said subsidy promised vide the Scheme, the Petitioner is entitled to subsidy on the capital cost to the extent of 33.33% as mentioned in Clause 3.7.1.1. The record further reveals that the Petitioner’s Term Loan was sanctioned on 11.11.2016 prior to the cut-off date for submission of the claim. 35. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the Operational Guidelines which was vide the Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2014 did not stipulate a cut-off date in respect to those applications which were filed in terms with the new guidelines which came into operation with effect from 12.03.2014. 36. The above facts therefore would show that the Petitioner was eligible for the subsidy claim. This answers the first point for determination. 37. Now let this Court take up the second point for determination which is as to whether on account of the Respondent No.7 having not submitted the subsidy claim for advance subsidy within 31.01.2017, the Petitioner can be deprived of the subsidy. In the foregoing paragraphs of the instant judgment, this Court has duly quoted Clause 3.10.1 which stipulated that the financial institutions were obligated within 90 days of the disbursement of the first installment of the loan to submit to the Regional Office, NABARD through the Controlling/Nodal Office a brief project profile-cum-claim form for advance subsidy in the prescribed form in Annexure-IX along with the documents as per the checklist at Annexure-X. It further stipulated that in the circumstance the Financial Institutions have delayed, the State Level Banker’s Committee would review all matters and ensure that such delays do not recur and the proposals are received by NABARD within time. This makes it very clear that in the circumstance, the Financial Institutions have delayed, the beneficiary of the subsidy should not be penalized on account of lapses on the part of the Financial Institutions. 38. This Court further finds it relevant at this stage to take note of Annexure-XI which is a part of the Operational Guidelines. This makes it very clear that in the circumstance, the Financial Institutions have delayed, the beneficiary of the subsidy should not be penalized on account of lapses on the part of the Financial Institutions. 38. This Court further finds it relevant at this stage to take note of Annexure-XI which is a part of the Operational Guidelines. The said Annexure is the “Instructions for the promoters” to be annexed by the Financial Institution with the loan sanction letter. The said instructions do not mandate any cut-off date. Be that as it may, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 relies upon Clause 10 of the Annexure-XI in support of their stand. Taking into account its relevance, the same is reproduced herein under: “10. Government’s interpretations of various terms of guidelines will be final. Government reserves the right to modify, add and delete any term and condition and restrict/stipulate any provision without assigning any reason therefore.” 39. The above quoted clause would show that the Government’s interpretations of various terms of guidelines would be final and the Government reserved the right to modify, add and delete any term and condition and restrict/stipulate any provision without assigning any reason therefore. 40. The materials on record show that on the basis of the above Clause, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contended that the communication dated 05.12.2016 was issued to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by the Agricultural Marketing Advisor to the Government of India wherein drawing reference to a communication dated 20.10.2016 regarding stoppage of sanction of the subsidy linked Term Loan for new projects by the Financial Institutions under the Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Sub-Scheme of ISAM, it was informed that the cut-off date for sanction of the subsidy linked Term Loan for the new project of SC/ST category promoters and for all category promoters in the North Eastern Region by the Financial Institution (including NCDC) under the Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Sub-Scheme of ISAM in the remaining period of the XII plan was extended upto 31.12.2016. It was further mentioned that the cut-off date for receiving and sanctioning of all advance subsidy claim by NABARD was also extended up to 31.01.2017 and 28.02.2017 respectively. This Court further takes note of that this communication was addressed to the Respondent No.5 only and copies thereof were issued to various authorities but not to the Financial Institutions. It was further mentioned that the cut-off date for receiving and sanctioning of all advance subsidy claim by NABARD was also extended up to 31.01.2017 and 28.02.2017 respectively. This Court further takes note of that this communication was addressed to the Respondent No.5 only and copies thereof were issued to various authorities but not to the Financial Institutions. The beneficiaries were also not informed about the decision of the Government of India. 41. Subsequent thereto, on 09.12.2016, the Respondent No.5 issued a circular No.285/DoR-67/2016-17 thereby intimating all the Financial Institutions including the Respondent No.7 about the cut-off date for the financing banks for submitting all advance subsidy claims to NABARD was extended from 30.11.2016 to 31.01.2017. Therefore, the Respondent No.7 at best would have knowledge about the said but not the Petitioner. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Respondent No.7 informed the Petitioner. 42. It is further relevant to take note of that the Operational Guidelines which came into operation w.e.f. 12.03.2014 obligates the Financial Institution who had issued, as in the instant case a Term Loan linking with the subsidy, to submit the proposal within time more so, when the Respondent No.7 in terms with the Circular dated 05.12.2016 was aware about the extension being granted to a particular date. 43. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that on account of the lapses on the part of the Respondent No.7 to submit the proposal in terms with Clause 3.10.1 to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 within 31.01.2017 that too when the first installment of the loan was disbursed on 29.12.2016 cannot be said that it was the fault on the part of the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner herein cannot be deprived of the entitlement in terms with the Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Scheme on account of lapses on the part of the Respondent No.7. This answers the second point for determination. 44. The third point for determination is what relief/reliefs the Petitioner herein would be entitled to. 45. It is the opinion of this Court that as the undisputed facts herein show that the Petitioner was eligible in terms with the Operational Guidelines pertaining to Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Scheme for the subsidy, the Petitioner herein is entitled to the said subsidy. 44. The third point for determination is what relief/reliefs the Petitioner herein would be entitled to. 45. It is the opinion of this Court that as the undisputed facts herein show that the Petitioner was eligible in terms with the Operational Guidelines pertaining to Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Scheme for the subsidy, the Petitioner herein is entitled to the said subsidy. On account of the failure on the part of the Respondent No.7 to submit the same within time cannot deprive the Petitioner of his entitlement. 46. This Court further takes note of that this Operational Guidelines on the basis of which the Petitioner has claimed his right to be entitled to the subsidy scheme is being taken away on the basis of a communication issued by the Respondent No.2 through the Agricultural Marketing Officer to the Government of India informing the Respondent No.5 and thereupon the Respondent No.5 issuing a circular only to the various Financial Institutions. The petitioner herein who otherwise have changed and altered his position on the basis of the scheme was never notified and as such, a promise so held out cannot be taken away in the manner in which it has been sought to be done. 47. This Court further finds it pertinent to take note of that the Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 are Public Sector Banks. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that the said Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 has to take appropriate steps in consultation with the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 so that the subsidy to which the Petitioner is entitled to is being disbursed more so taking into account that the Respondent Authorities in terms with the Operational Guidelines have carried out a Joint Inspection and found that the Petitioner has utilized the term loan for the purpose for which it was issued. 48. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions; (i) The Petitioner herein is entitled to the subsidy in terms with the Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Scheme as made operational on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2014. 48. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions; (i) The Petitioner herein is entitled to the subsidy in terms with the Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Scheme as made operational on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2014. (ii) The amount lying in the Current Account of the Petitioner (CA No.37303590537) maintained with the Respondent No.7 totaling to Rs.16,03,800/- be released to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.7 upon a certified copy of the present judgment submitted to the Branch Manager of the Respondent No.7 within 15 days. (iii) The Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are directed to do the needful so that the final subsidy amount which the Petitioner is also entitled to be disbursed at the earliest and not later than 4 (four) months from the date of the present judgment and order. (iv) The directions at Clauses (ii) and (iii) hereinabove are passed taking into account that the Petitioner had already repaid the entire loan amount to the satisfaction of the Respondent No.7. (v) This Court further directs the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to do the needful so that the Petitioner is disbursed the subsidy amount as per his entitlement in full. (vi) Interim order passed on 16.11.2018 stands vacated.