ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ application is that at the time of installation of the submersible pump he was allowed some subsidy but subsequently that amount was directed to be paid by the petitioner.
(2.) Learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner submits that on the basis of the circular dated 15th July, 2008 his client was granted subsidy and his client thereafter by paying the charges, enjoying the electricity for running the submersible pump. He submits that his client is a poor farmer. Therefore, no claim should be granted and the claim granted should be struck down.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the electricity authorities submits that the circular which was issued on 15th July, 2008 clearly stipulates the cut-off date 31st March, 2008 within that period the applications made are to be allowed such benefit but in the instant case 18th September, 2008 the writ petitioner filed his application and under no circumstances, even by applying the aforesaid circular dated 15th July, 2008, no benefit could be given to the writ petitioner. The concerned employee of the department has made a mistake in allowing such subsidy in favour of the writ petitioner which he is not entitled to get. He wanted to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his contention.;