BHUVNESHWAR LAL KURRE vs COLLECTOR

1

CGHC010333742026 2026:CGHC:38547
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AVINASH
SHARMA
WPC No. 4435 of 2026
Digitally signed by
AVINASH
SHARMA
Date: 2026.09.02
11:15:47 +0530
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.

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