High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 01 UK CK 0014

Vinay Kumar Ghildiyal & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 6 January 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 8 Of 2022

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 172 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

According to the petitioner, in the year 2009, he was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/-under Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Yojna. Grievance of

the petitioner is that subsidy available under the said scheme has not been sanctioned to him.

2.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that total outstanding of the petitioner as on 01.07.2020 is more than Rs. 23,00,000/-, against

which, petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

3.

The question, whether petitioner is entitled to subsidy or not, cannot be decided in writ proceedings.

4.

Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to District

Tourism Development Officer, Pauri Garhwal. If petitioner makes such representation within ten days from today, District Tourism Development

Officer concerned shall place the matter before the concerned Committee, which shall take a decision as early as possible; but, not later than eight

weeks’ from the date of production of certified copy of this order.