WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 1 of 18

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India.

***

Ramesh Chandra Panda

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opposite Parties.

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Jalli, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mrs. U. Padhi, Addl. Standing Counsel.

Mr. K. Jena, Adv. (For O.P. No.6)

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 2 of 18

Date of Hearing : 15.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 28.01.2026

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner

praying for quashing the Letter/Order dated 16.04.2025

under Annexure-3 issued/passed by the Opp. Party No.6 (The

Managing Director Agriculture Promotion & Investment

Cooperation of Odisha i.e. APICOL) and to direct the Opp.

Parties including the Opp. Party No.6 for releasing the subsidy

of 40% of the project cost (fixed capital) limited to

Rs.50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lakhs only).

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which

prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, on being

alured by the scheme/yojana of “Mukhyamantri Krushi

Udyog Yojana” (MKUY) published through the Notification of

the Government, Department of Agriculture & Farmers’

empowerment to ease of doing Agri-business with simple,

transparent, online and time bound implementation of the

said Yojana for the larger interest of the agri-entrepreneurs of

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 3 of 18

the State, the petitioner being an agriculturist applied for

establishing a layer farming of 30,000 bird capacity in his

landed properties in Mouza-Dimiria under Khalikote Police

Station in the District of Ganjam in the name of its project as

Maa Tarini Poultries Private Limited and made an application

for the sanction of loan for his such project as per MKUY

Scheme/Yojana and after considering his application and on

fulfilment of all the criterias of such Scheme/Yojana, a loan of

Rs.1,80,00,000/- was sanctioned by the Opp. Party No.3 (The

Chief District Veterinary Officer-Cum-Nodal Officer MKUY

(ARD), Ganjam) in favour of the petitioner towards the above

project cost of the petitioner and the Opp. Party No.3

requested Opp. Party No.7 (The Branch Manager, Indian

Bank, Berhampur, City High School Road, Berhampur) for

releasing the said loan amount in favour of the petitioner and

accordingly, a Go-Ahead Letter vide Annexure -4 was issued

on dated 25.05.2021 by the Opp. Party No.3 in favour of the

petitioner and the Opp. Party No.3 also issued a letter vide

Annexure-5 to the Opp. Party No.7 for extending cooperation

through necessary financial support to the petitioner for the

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 4 of 18

establishment of the project of the petitioner. During that

time, Covid-19 pandemic was continuing all over the country

and the same was at its peak stage. As the “Go-Ahead Letter”

vide Annexure-4 was issued during the time of continuation of

Covid-19 Pandemic, for which, the project works of the

petitioner could not be progressed effectively for the non-

availability of man powers. So, after lifting of the lockdown

and shut down measures of Covid-19 Pandemic, the project

works of the petitioner progressed slowly. Because, soon after

the lifting of the Covid-19 pandemic, required number of man

powers were not available only for the reason that, the

persons/labourers those were affected in Covid-19, they were

not physically fit to resume their works immediately. However,

the petitioner could able to complete his project work by the

end of March 2024 and intimated the same to the Opp.

Parties. For which, on 06.05.2024, the project of the petitioner

was inspected physically by the Engineer of Indian Bank and

a report about the completion of project of the petitioner was

given on dated 07.05.2024 vide Annexure-7.

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 5 of 18

As per the guidelines of “Mukhyamantri Krushi Udyog

Yojana” (MKUY) and as per Annexure-4, the petitioner was

entitled for the subsidy of 40% of the project cost (fixed

capital) limited to Rs.50,00,000/- on completion of his above

project, but, when in spite of approach of the petitioner, the

Opp. Party No.6 did not release his subsidy of 40% amount of

the project cost (Fixed Capital) limited to Rs.50,00,000/- in

conformity with the guidelines of MKUY scheme, then, the

petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide

WP(C) No.3624 of 2025 praying for directing the Opp. Parties

including the Opp. Party No.6 (M.D of APICOL) for releasing

subsidy of 40% of the project cost (fixed capital) limited to

Rs.50,00,000/- (in words, fifty lakhs only) in favour of the

petitioner.

3. As per the final order dated 06.03.2025 passed in WP(C)

No.3624 of 2025, by this Court, liberty was granted to the

petitioner to approach the Opp. Party No.6 (M.D. of APICOL)

ventilating his all grievances through a representation for the

sanction of the above subsidy and to dispose of the said

representation of the petitioner within 2 weeks, clarifying that,

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 6 of 18

if the petitioner’s claim is found to be genuine and admissible,

necessary benefits be disbursed in his favour without any

further delay.

Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation on

dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure-2) in due time before the Opp.

Party No.6 (M.D. of APICOL) praying for releasing the subsidy

of 40% of the project cost (fixed capital) limited to

Rs.50,00,000/- stating everything in detail in his

representation.

After considering the representation dated 17.03.2025

(Annexure-2) of the petitioner, the Opp. Party No.6, as per

Order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-3) rejected to his

representation dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure-2) assigning the

reasons that,

“According to the Go-Ahead Letter dated 25.05.2021

(Annexure-4), the project works of the petitioner should have

been completed by 25.05.2023, but, as per the physical

verification report dated 06.05.2024, his project works have

been completed on 07.05.2024 and as his project works were

not completed within 25.05.2023 i.e. within the time period

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 7 of 18

indicated in Annexure-4, he (petitioner) is not entitled for the

subsidy of 40% of the project cost (fixed capital) limited to

Rs.50,00,000/- as per MKUY scheme as claimed by him.

The Opp. Party No.6, communicated his aforesaid order

dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-3) to the petitioner through Letter

No.391 dated 16.04.2025.”

4. On being dissatisfied with the said order/letter dated

16.04.2025 (Annexure-3) issued/passed by the Opp. Party

No.6, the petitioner challenged the same by filing this Writ

Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India, 1950 against the Opp. Parties praying for quashing the

Letter/Order No.391 dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-3) of the

Opp. Party No.6 and to direct the Opp. Parties including the

Opp. Party No.6 for releasing subsidy of 40% of the project

cost (fixed capital) limited to Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the

petitioner and to pass such other writs/orders as this Court

may deem fit and proper stating in the writ petition that, due

to continuation of Covid-19 pandemic, there was some delay

in completion of the project works of the petitioner within

25.05.2023 for the non-availability of man powers

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 8 of 18

during such Covid-19 Pandemic period and the completion of

project works by the petitioner within 25.05.2023 was beyond

the control of the petitioner due to the continuation of Covid-

19 Pandemic. For which, the subsidy of 40% of the project

cost, which was declared by the Government as an incentive

for the promotion of MKUY Scheme cannot be denied

defeating the main object/purpose of such scheme

discouraging the agricultural entrepreneurs like the petitioner

causing ultimate loss and harassment to the petitioner as well

Jeopardizing/creating obstacle in the nation’s progress.

5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State

and the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party No.6.

6. The project of the petitioner i.e. M/s. Maa Tarini

Poultries Private Limited at Dimiria is a layer poultry farming

of 30,000 bird capacity, which is purely an agricultural

project.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

(I) In cases between Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bangalore Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd.

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 9 of 18

and Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 632 & The

Executive Engineer (Electrical) NESCO, Baripada

Electrical Division Vs. OMBUDSMAN-II,

(Electricity) and Ors. reported in 2013 (I) OLR 250

that, hatchery comes under poultry farming covered

under allied agricultural activities.

7. Here in this matter at hand, when the loan for the

project of the petitioner i.e. M/s. Maa Tarini Poultries Private

Limited was sanctioned under MKUY Agricultural Scheme of

the Government and when the petitioner is an entrepreneur of

the said agricultural scheme, then, as per the guidelines of

the MKUY scheme, it is held that, the petitioner is an

agricultural entrepreneur of the State under the MKUY

scheme.

As per the MKUY scheme, all the agri-entrepreneurs of

MKUY scheme like the petitioner shall be entitled to the

subsidy of 40% of the project cost (fixed capital) limited to

Rs.50,00,000/- but, as per Letter/Order No.391 dated

16.04.2025 vide Annexure-3, the Opp. Party No.6 has

disentitled/denied the petitioner to get the same on the

ground of non-completion of his project works within

25.05.2023.

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 10 of 18

The petitioner has specifically stated in his

representation dated 17.03.2025 vide Annexure-2 (which was

submitted on the basis of the final order dated 06.03.2025

passed by this Court in WP(C) No.3624 of 2025) that, due to

the continuation of Covid-19 pandemic, there was little delay

in completion of the project works and the project works were

completed by the end of April 2024. The aforesaid little delay

in completion of the project works by the petitioner was

neither intentional nor deliberate, but the said delay was

natural and obvious on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, which

was beyond his control.

Considering the restrictions in the movements of the

citizens all over the country during Covid-19 Pandemic, the

stipulation/limitation/target for completion of all the project

works were extended by the Supreme Court excluding the

Covid-19 Pandemic Period clarifying about the same in the

ratio of the following decisions:

(I) In Re: Cognizance for Extension Of

Limitation In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.

3 Of 2020 decided in 23.03.2020 reported in

2020 (1) CLR SC 660 that, on account of

Covid-19 variant resultant difficulties that may

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 11 of 18

be faced by the litigants across the country,

period of limitation in all proceedings

irrespective of limitation prescribed under the

General Law or Special Law whether

condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f.

from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed

in the present proceedings and further declared

that, the order is binding on all the

Courts/Tribunals and authorities within the

meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of

India, 1950. In the said case i.e. In Re:

Cognizance for Extension Of Limitation In

Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020

decided on 10.01.2022 reported in 2022 (1)

Civ.C.C. 317 (SC) that, due to second surge in

Covid Cases, the period of extension which was

granted since 15.03.2020, the same is granted

from 15.03.2020 to till 28.02.2022 and the

period of limitation expires during such period

shall stand excluded in computing the period

of limitation.

8. As per the dictum of the Apex Court in the ratio of the

aforesaid decisions, the time period stipulated in the

Annexure-4 for starting the project works of the petitioner

since 25.05.2021, as per Go-Ahead Letter dated 25.05.2021

was extended automatically as per law up to 29.02.2022 on

the ground of restrictions in the movements of the people for

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 12 of 18

any work during that period due to natural non-availability of

man powers for Covid-19 pandemic up to 28.02.2022.

When in view of the above dictum of the Apex Court, the

project works of the petitioner should have been completed

within its two years since 29.02.2022, but, instead of which,

the project works of the petitioner have been completed by the

end of April 2024 i.e. only in delay of two months on account

of the affect of large number of persons in Covid-19 due to the

slow progress of their physical fitness to join in the works,

then, in such a situation, the slow progress of the project

work due to lack of adequate man powers soon after the over

of Covid-19 Pandemic was natural and obvious due to lack of

physical ability of the persons/labourers to work physically

soon after their recovery from Covid-19. For which, above two

months delay in completion of the project work by the

petitioner cannot be treated as his deliberate and intentional

delay in completion of the same.

9. The conclusions drawn above finds support from the

ratio of the following decisions:

(I) In cases between Naihati Jute Mills Limited Vs.

Khyalinam Jagannath reported in AIR 1968 (SC) 522 &

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 13 of 18

Satyabrata Ghosh Vs. Mugneeram Bangur & Co.

reported in AIR 1954 (SC) 44 that, impossibility of

performance may also arise where without any default of

either party, when the contractual obligation had become

incapable/impracticable of being performed, because the

circumstances in which performance was called for was

radically different from that undertaken by the contract, the

Court can take the note of the said impossibility of

performance.

(II) In a case between Syed Khursed Ali Vs. State of

Orissa & Another reported in 2006 (I) CLR 400 (Para

No.12) that, when performance of the contract on the part

of the petitioner became an impossibility and such

impossibility can be brought within the fold of “force

majeure”, because it applies to a subsequent unforeseen

event or contingency, for which, neither of the parties is

responsible.

(III) In a case between Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. Vs.

Union of India reported in AIR 1960 (SC) 588 that, in

India, in the codified law of contracts, there is nothing

which justifies the view that, a change of circumstances,

“completely outside the contemplation of parties”, at the

time when the contract was entered into, will justify a

Court, while holding the parties bound by the Contract, in

departing from the express terms thereof.

10. Subsidy means, the subsidy is a monetary help provided

to the loanee by the Government.

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 14 of 18

The object and intention of the Government for the

introduction of the Subsidy Scheme is to attract more

entrepreneurs in respect of the projects under that scheme.

The law relating to the object of the subsidy has already been

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

(I) In a case between Vasu Coco Private Limited Vs.

State of Kerala & Others reported in 2023 Livelaw

(Ker.) 27 (decided on 10.01.2023) that, the intention

of the Government for the introduction of the subsidy

scheme is to attract the persons like that of the

petitioner as entrepreneur giving benefit through

subsidy.

(II) In a case between Indian Oil Corporation &

Others Vs. Kerala Road Transport Corporation &

Others reported in (2018) 12 SCC 518 that, grant of

subsidy by the Government is a matter of privilege, to be

extended by the Government.

11. From the ratio of the aforesaid decisions as well as from

the scheme of MKUY, it is clear that, the declaration was

made by the Government for the payment of the subsidy in

order to attract more entrepreneurs for that agricultural

MKUY Scheme/Yojana.

12. APICOL i.e. Agricultural Promotion Investment of Odisha

Limited is a wholly owned corporation of Government of

Odisha. The sole objective of the APICOL is to promote agri-

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 15 of 18

based industries, food processing industries including

commercial agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and

fisheries. APICOL is a Government of Odisha undertaking,

coming up as a promotional organization for providing

assistance to agricultural enterprises in the State of Odisha.

So, APICOL is a sector of the Government. Therefore,

Government is the principal of the APICOL.

13. Here in this matter at hand, none of the Opp. Parties

including the Government (which is the Principal of the Opp.

Party No.6) except the Opp. Party No.6(M.D of APICOL) has

opposed/objected to the entitlement to the subsidy of 40% of

the project cost (fixed capital) limited to Rs.50,00,000/-

submitting any counter against the prayer of the petitioner

and when subsidy will be paid by the Government as per the

declaration made in the MUKY Scheme and when the

Government (who is the Principal of the Opp. Party No.6) is

not disagree for the payment of the declared subsidy as per

the MUKY Scheme to the petitioner and when the completion

of the project works within 25.05.2023 as per Annexure-4 by

the petitioner was impossible/ impracticable on account of

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 16 of 18

continuation of Covid-19 pandemic till 28.02.2022

commencing prior to 25.05.2021 and when for such Covid-19

Pandemic, neither of the parties is responsible for delay in

completion of the project works and when supervision of the

project works of the petitioner were made by the Opp. Parties

after 25.05.2023 without raising any objection about the non-

completion of the project work within 25.05.2023, as they

were aware that, for Covid-19 pandemic, it was not possible to

complete the project works within 25.05.2023

forgiving/abandoning their right of any objection, then, at

this juncture, the rejection to the claim of the petitioner for

the grant of subsidy of 40% of the project cost (fixed capital)

limited to Rs.50,00,000/- as per the impugned Letter/Order

dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-3) by the Opp. Party No.6 (The

Managing Director Agriculture Promotion & Investment

Cooperation of Odisha i.e. APICOL) only on the ground of

non-completion of such project works within 25.05.2023 is

not justified under law. Because, the completion of project

works within 25.05.2023 by the petitioner was impossible and

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 17 of 18

the same was beyond his control for the reasons assigned

above.

For which, the impugned Letter/Order dated 16.04.2025

(Annexure-3) issued/ passed by the Opp. Party No.6 cannot

be sustainable under law. The same is liable to be quashed.

14. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the

petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

15. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed on contest.

16. The impugned Letter/Order dated 16.04.2025

(Annexure-3) passed/issued by the Opp. Party No.6 is

quashed.

All the Opp. Parties including the Opp. Party No.6 (The

Managing Director Agriculture Promotion & Investment

Cooperation of Odisha i.e. APICOL) are jointly and severally

liable for the disbursement of the subsidy of 40% of the

project cost (fixed capital) limited to Rs.50,00,000/- as per

“Mukhyamantri Krushi Udyog Yojana (MKUY)” in favour of the

petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of this

Judgment, failing which, the petitioner is entitled to get 9%

WP(C) No.16506 of 2025 Page 18 of 18

interest per annum thereon since 14.02.2026 till its full and

final payment to the petitioner.

17. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this

Judgment to all the Opp. Parties immediately for proper

implementation of the directions made in this Judgment.

18. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is

disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA )

JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The 28 .01. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak

Sr. Stenographer