A project transferee cannot claim subsidy under an expired scheme absent continuing entitlement.

KEPL applied under the respondent’s 2011 Scheme for Financial Assistance/Subsidy to Small Hydro Power Projects for establishing a 24 MW hydroelectric project in Himachal Pradesh. The respondent sanctioned capital subsidy of ₹8.90 crore and released 50% thereof against a bank guarantee.

KEPL’s loan account was subsequently declared an NPA, and Punjab National Bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings. The petitioner purchased the project through e-auction, confirmed on 7 October 2017.

After correspondence between the respondent and KEPL regarding extension of the bank guarantee and project progress, the respondent withdrew the subsidy sanction and encashed the guarantee.

The petitioner thereafter sought subsidy of ₹8.90 crore, but the respondent rejected the claim on the ground that the project had already been sanctioned subsidy, had not been completed within the stipulated period, and could not be treated as a new project merely because ownership had changed.

The petitioner challenged the rejection letters dated 27 February 2019 and 6 September 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution, but filed the writ petition only on 22 February 2022.

Whether the petitioner, having acquired the hydroelectric project through SARFAESI proceedings, was entitled to claim or revive the capital subsidy originally sanctioned to KEPL.

Whether the respondent’s letter dated 19 June 2018, seeking project-status information and extension of the bank guarantee, extended the implementation period or revived the withdrawn subsidy.

Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, having been filed more than two years after the impugned decisions.

The Court applied the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, including the doctrine of delay and laches.

Relying on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, it held that although no statutory limitation period governs writ petitions, unexplained and inordinate delay may defeat relief because delay can prejudice the opposite party and is inconsistent with equitable relief.

The Court also applied the terms and object of the Small Hydro Power subsidy scheme, including the respondent’s asserted power under Clauses 27 and 38 to withdraw financial support where the project was not commissioned within the prescribed period or related conditions were breached.

A subsidy scheme is available only within its operative period and according to its conditions; correspondence seeking progress information does not, by itself, extend the scheme or revive a withdrawn sanction.

The Court found that the petitioner acquired the project on 7 October 2017 but did not promptly assert any entitlement to subsidy and approached the respondent only after learning of the correspondence with KEPL.

The 19 June 2018 letter merely sought a progress report, synchronization certificate, generation data, and extension of the bank guarantee; it neither condoned the delay in commissioning nor extended the life of the scheme.

By the petitioner’s first relevant communication dated 9 October 2018, the scheme had already expired in 2017.

Consequently, the petitioner could not obtain a fresh or revived subsidy merely by acquiring the project from the original beneficiary, particularly when KEPL’s sanction had been withdrawn following non-commissioning and NPA-related developments.

Independently, the petitioner offered no justification for the more-than-two-year delay in challenging the rejection letters, warranting dismissal on the ground of laches.

The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.