Madhya Pradesh High Court

WP/26537/2021 of M/S INDIAN AGRICULTURE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 January 2025

COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2022

WRIT PETITION No. 26537 of 2021

Between:-

M/S

INDIAN

AGRICULTURE,

THROUGH

PROPRIETOR MANISH KUMAR JAIN, S/O KAMAL

KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BY OCCUPATION

BUSINESS, R/O NEHRU PARK, JHANDA BAZAR

KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) 483501

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR CHAND - ADVOCATE )

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH

PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT

OF

FARMER

WELFARE

AND

AGRICULTURE

DEVELOPMENT,

VINDHYACHAL

BHAWAN,

BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

FARMER

WELFARE

AND

AGRICULTURAL

DEPARTMENT THROUGH DIRECTOR 2ND FLOOR,

C-WING, VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.

FARMER

WELFARE

AND

AGRICULTURAL

DEPARTMENT,

THROUGH

JOINT

DIRECTOR

VIKAS BAHWAN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.

FARMER

WELFARE

AND

AGRICULTURAL

DEPARTMENT THROUGH DY. DIRECTOR KATNI

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI S.S. CHOUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that under the Government Scheme, he is entitled for subsidy. The petitioner further states that about 1194 farmers were registered and the respondents have reimbursed the subsidy amount of all those registered farmers except for 66 farmers. The petitioner has made various representations, however, the same have not yet been decided. The petitioner as of now confines his prayer to the extent that the respondents be directed to consider his entitlement and pass appropriate orders in accordance with

Page 1 of 2

SAN Signature Not Verified

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV) JUDGE law. The said prayer is not opposed by the learned Government Advocate. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is granted a liberty to file fresh representation before the respondent No.2, who in turn would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A.Praj.

SAN

SAN

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead