IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2361 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.10.2008. M/s Prasid Jindal Associates ....Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.S.K. Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Navneet Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court against concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts below. The suit filed by him for declaration to the effect that appellant/plaintiff was entitled to State subsidy at the rate of 15% and Central Subsidy at the rate of 10% and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents for grant of subsidy along with interest and adjust the same against arrears of loan on account of seed money disbursed to the appellant/plaintiff. Both the Courts below did not find favour with the claim made by the appellant/plaintiff as regard his entitlement for subsidy either Central or State. As far as loan on account of seed money to the tune of Rs. 33,525/- is concerned learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount along with interest thereto to the tune of Rs.1,90,000/- has already been repaid to the state. His only submission is that the State Government has framed certain policy for waiver of interest on the loan advanced to small entrepreneurs. Appellant though has deposited the amount of seed money along with interest thereon but he has also represented to the State Government for grant of waiver of interest. His application is pending before the Competent Authority. His only submission is that in case RSA No.2361 of 2005 -2- the interest is waived off to other similarly situated small entrepreneurs, his case may also, be considered for waiver of interest and consequently refund of the amount of interest paid by him, as per the policy framed by the Government, be granted. For this prayer of the appellant learned counsel for the State has no objection. He submits that the application, if any, filed by the plaintiff/appellant will be considered in terms of any policy in that regard framed by the State. In view of above observation, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has became infructuous and may be dismissed as such. Dismissed as infructuous. (RAJESH BINDAL) 31.10.2008. JUDGE Reema