C.W.P No. 15240 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 15240 of 2008 Date of decision : August 28, 2008 Azad Singh & another ...... Petitioners through Mr. D.R.Bansal, Advocate v. Union of India & others, ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioners had taken a tractor loan of Rs.1.58 lac from respondent No.4-Bank on 30.8.1995. In view of the default made by the petitioners in repayment of the same, the respondent-bank had filed a petition under the Haryana Agricultural Act, 1973 for recovery of Rs.3,32,980/-, which was allowed on 28.8.2006. Thereafter, in the year 2008, the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (for short “the scheme”) was announced. This petition has been filed for quashing the scheme in so much as it discriminates between the loans which were raised before 31.3.1997 and those which were raised subsequently. It is also alleged that certain loans which may have been granted before 31.3.1997 have also been C.W.P No. 15240 of 2008 ::2:: covered by the scheme provided such loans had been restructured and rescheduled in 2004 and 2006 either through special packages or as per RBI guidelines. It is argued that this is another instance of discriminatory operation of the scheme. In our opinion, such schemes relating to fiscal concessions though not immune from challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution of India do nevertheless have to be tested against a different touchstone and cannot be subjected to a merely mathematical application of the jurisprudence of differential action. It is trite to say that a concession can never be claimed as a matter of right, more so in the field of economic policy. To hold otherwise would be to open a floodgate of allegations of differential treatment in, for instance tax rates or tax slabs. In any case, the proper arena for challenging the fiscal philosophy of any government is not the Courts but at the hustings. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE August 28, 2008 'kk'