Abdul Wahid Khan vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the controversy raised by the petitioner revolves around disputed questions of fact. The petitioner's claim that Axis Bank failed to upload the subsidy claim and documents in time, leading to non-release of subsidy, requires examination of loan documents, scheme guidelines, material submitted, the bank's acts and omissions, queries from NABARD, and the portal's status. The Court found that adjudicating these issues would necessitate an examination and appreciation of disputed factual matters, including whether the petitioner fulfilled all scheme conditions, if the bank committed an actionable default, if the delay was attributable to the bank, and if the subsidy remained eligible after portal closure. Such an exercise is not appropriate in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the factual foundation is disputed and the liability of respondents is not conclusively established. The Court also noted that the petitioner was not challenging any specific order from NABARD or RBI, but primarily the alleged failure of Axis Bank. Therefore, the petition, being founded substantially upon disputed factual assertions and seeking adjudication of a commercial claim requiring detailed evidence, was dismissed. The dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from pursuing other available remedies.

Facts

The petitioner, Abdul Wahid Khan, filed a writ petition seeking directions to NABARD (Respondent No. 2) to release interest subvention, Axis Bank (Respondent No. 4) to credit subsidy and adjust EMIs, and to prevent his account from being declared NPA. The petitioner alleged that Axis Bank failed to upload his subsidy claim, photographs, and other requisite documents on the NABARD portal within the stipulated time, leading to the claim being rejected or not processed. The NABARD portal for fresh claims was closed in June 2025. The petitioner claimed to have repaid approximately Rs. 89,00,000/- and was bearing a higher interest rate due to the non-receipt of subsidy. He contended that he should not suffer due to the bank's negligence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing NABARD to release interest subvention and Axis Bank to credit subsidy, given that the entitlement and compliance with scheme conditions are disputed factual matters? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 2. Whether the Court can direct Axis Bank to credit subsidy from its own funds and adjust EMIs, or grant a One Time Settlement, as a remedy for alleged negligence in a writ petition? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he complied with all scheme requirements and provided necessary documents to Axis Bank. He contended that the bank's failure to upload documents on the NABARD portal in time caused him to be deprived of the subsidy benefit. He asserted that he should not suffer for the bank's omission or negligence, especially after the portal closed. He relied on his representations to the authorities. Respondents' Arguments: NABARD (Respondent No. 2) argued that the claim requires factual examination of scheme compliance, timely submission, and document verification, which cannot be adjudicated solely on writ petition assertions. The Reserve Bank of India (Respondent No. 3) argued that the dispute primarily concerns the lending bank's alleged delay and the petitioner has not established RBI's liability. Both NABARD and RBI contended that the reliefs sought involve examination of disputed factual circumstances and contractual/commercial claims, which are not suitable for writ jurisdiction.