MIDH

Settled, and settled against combining them on one project. NHB's own guideline says so twice, in the same words both times: the schemes of NHB and the schemes under MIDH, including NHM, "are mutually exclusive, and financial assistance can be claimed under only one scheme for a single project". This is a project-level bar, not a component-level one, so it is not avoided by putting the growing rooms under one scheme and the compost yard under the other.

This overturns the verdict this atlas published until 14 September 2026, which was "unconfirmed". That was an honest reading of the superseded guideline, which genuinely did not address the question; the reasoning at the time was that neither document said in so many words whether a single project may draw from both. The current guideline does say so.

Choose on the arithmetic, not on the paperwork. For a mushroom project of any real size the two are not close: MIDH prices the growing rooms against a fixed cost norm, so its entitlement stops rising once the norm is reached, while NHB prices per tonne up to 300 MT. MIDH is the better route mainly for a small or self-funded grower, because it carries credit-linkage escapes that NHB does not, and because NHB does not fund a unit of 50 MT or less at all.

This document's own cover names it as implementing "MISSION FOR INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT OF HORTICULTURE (MIDH)", not a separate, state-invented scheme, and every cost norm and pattern-of-assistance percentage in its Mushroom Cultivation chapter is identical to the central MIDH Operational Guidelines' Annexure V, item III (Production Unit ₹30 lakh/unit at 100%/40%; Spawn making unit ₹20 lakh/unit at 100%/40%; Compost making Unit ₹30 lakh/unit at 100%/40%; Low Cost/Small Scale unit ₹2 lakh/unit at 50%, max 5/beneficiary, see MIDH's own record on this site). This is Andhra Pradesh's own implementation guideline FOR the central scheme, administered through this state's DPR/APMIP process, an AP mushroom applicant draws one subsidy under MIDH, not two. Marked 'excluded' rather than 'stackable' so a farmer is never shown this record's rules and midh-2025's as two independent, additive sums for the same component.

This record and MIDH are not two schemes, they are one. The approval letter is the Government of India authorising Arunachal Pradesh to implement HMNEH under MIDH, and binding the spending to the scheme's own norms. Marked 'excluded' so an Arunachal applicant is never shown a state entitlement and a central one as two separate sums for the same growing room. Note that the approved plan and the current central guideline disagree about the private-sector rate in this State (40% against 50%); that is set out in this record's own note, and how MIDH itself treats an NE and Himalayan State is the concern of MIDH's own record on this site, not of this one.

This document's own table heading ("एकीकृत बागवानी विकास मिशन" = MIDH) and every cost norm/rate on the mushroom row (Production ₹30 lakh at 100%/40%; Spawn ₹20 lakh at 100%/40%; Compost ₹30 lakh at 100%/40%; Low cost/small scale ₹2 lakh at 50%, max 5/beneficiary) are identical to MIDH Operational Guidelines 2025, Annexure V item III (see MIDH's own record on this site) and to this project's Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh records of the same central scheme, this is Chhattisgarh's own implementation booklet FOR central MIDH, administered through this state's Directorate of Horticulture & Farm Forestry, not a separate state-authored scheme. A Chhattisgarh mushroom applicant draws one subsidy under MIDH, not two. Marked 'excluded' rather than 'stackable', same reasoning already applied to Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

This document's own table names the funding source for all three mushroom rows, verbatim, as "National Horticulture Mission (NHM) (Central)", Goa is not claiming an independently-invented state benefit here, it is listing the central MIDH scheme for its farmers' benefit, in a farmer-facing handbook that also lists many other purely central schemes the same way (coconut, banana, spices, cashew rejuvenation, etc., all tagged "(Central)" in the same column). Marked 'excluded' rather than 'stackable' so a Goa farmer is never shown this record's rules and midh-2025's as two independent, additive sums for the same component.

SB-69 states outright that "MIDH is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme ... covering ... mushrooms" and that Haryana's SHM/HSHDA implements it "as per guidelines and norms envisaged in the scheme"; SB-65 states the same for the 3 non-MIDH-cluster districts, "on the pattern of Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture". This is Haryana administering the identical central scheme through its own nodal machinery, not a Haryana-invented add-on, the same reasoning already applied to Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, whose own documents print the identical MIDH figures directly rather than by reference. Marked 'excluded' so a Haryana applicant is never shown this record's rules and midh-2025's as two independent, additive sums for the same component.

This record and MIDH are not two schemes, they are one. The document is the Mission's own approved Annual Action Plan for Jharkhand, funding the mushroom component out of a budget split 60% central and 40% State, at the central cost norms. Marked 'excluded' so a Jharkhand applicant is never shown a state entitlement and a central one as two separate sums for the same growing room. Unlike Puducherry's and West Bengal's plans, this one carries no covering approval letter, so the verdict rests on the approved table rather than on a signed clause.

This document's own title and every cost norm/pattern-of-assistance percentage (Production Unit ₹30 lakh at 100%/40%; Spawn making unit ₹20 lakh at 100%/40%; Compost making Unit ₹30 lakh at 100%/40%; Low Cost/Small Scale unit ₹2 lakh at 50%, max 5/beneficiary) are identical to MIDH Operational Guidelines 2025, Annexure V item III (see MIDH's own record on this site), this is Karnataka's own implementation guideline FOR the central MIDH scheme (the running file header even reads "DH-NHM0NHMT...", NHM being the National Horticulture Mission umbrella MIDH sits under), administered through this state's Directorate of Horticulture. A Karnataka mushroom applicant draws one subsidy under MIDH, not two. Marked 'excluded' rather than 'stackable', same reasoning this project already applied to Andhra Pradesh.

A note on what changed in this reasoning, and what did not. This verdict used to rest, in part, on the cost norms here being "genuinely different" from central MIDH's, which was read as a sign of a separate, state-authored schedule. That reading was wrong: Rs 20 lakh / Rs 15 lakh / Rs 20 lakh is the central norm the current one replaced. The figures therefore distinguish nothing on their own, in either direction, and the verdict below is re-derived without them. Re-derived. This document names itself "एकीकृत बागवानी विकास मिशन (एमआईडीएच)" (MIDH) and shares central MIDH's structure exactly: three mushroom sub-units, in the central table's own order, at the central 100%-public / 40%-private credit-linked back-ended pattern, row 4 reproducing that pattern almost word for word. That is the same shape Karnataka's and Chhattisgarh's records marked 'excluded'; the one thing that used to separate this record from them was the cost norms, and that difference has now been identified as a difference of generation, not of authorship. A state publishing the central mission's own components at the central mission's own norms is restating that mission, not running a second one beside it: a Madhya Pradesh mushroom applicant draws one subsidy under MIDH, not two. This says nothing about the rate: this undated document references no revision or superseding circular, so which figure MP quotes today is still not established here (see the file-level comment), and the current central Annexure V, at ₹30 lakh, is where a Madhya Pradesh grower should start.

A note on what changed in this reasoning, and what did not. This verdict used to rest, in part, on the cost norms here being "genuinely different" from central MIDH's, which was read as a sign of a separate, state-authored schedule. That reading was wrong: Rs 20 lakh / Rs 15 lakh / Rs 20 lakh is the central norm the current one replaced. The figures therefore distinguish nothing on their own, in either direction, and the verdict below is re-derived without them. This verdict never rested on the figures and stands unchanged; if anything the correction makes it plainer, since the norms are now known to be the central mission's own. THIS document identifies itself, in its own words, as implementing the central scheme. "एकात्मिक फलोत्पादन विकास अभियान" (this document's own running-header name, repeated on every page) is the standard Marathi name for "Integrated [Horticulture] Development Mission", and the document removes any translation doubt itself: its own bank completion-certificate template (Annexure, PDF ~p.32) states in English, verbatim: "The project is completed as per the guidelines of Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH)." Its beneficiary bond form (हमीपत्र, PDF ~p.29) has the applicant certify (translated) "I/we have submitted a proposal for approval under the Integrated Horticulture Development Mission [MIDH]... administered by the Maharashtra State Horticulture and Medicinal Plants Board, Pune" and, separately, "I/we certify that neither I nor any family member has taken any subsidy of any kind from any other Central/State Government institution or scheme [for this project]." Clause 5.3 (PDF p.3) states the same rule generally: "Projects already subsidised by any other government department shall NOT be considered eligible for subsidy again." Taken together: this is Maharashtra's own MIDH implementation, administered through its state horticulture board, at the central norms of the day, not a second, additive scheme, a farmer draws one subsidy, not two. Marked 'excluded' rather than 'unconfirmed', on this document's own words about itself, never on the cost norms.

This record and MIDH are not two schemes, they are one. The document is the Mission's own approved Annual Action Plan for Punjab, funding the mushroom component out of a budget split 60% central and 40% State, at the central cost norms. Marked 'excluded' so a Punjab applicant is never shown a state entitlement and a central one as two separate sums for the same growing room. This verdict covers the MIDH stream only: Punjab separately names a State Plan scheme, "Financial Assistance to Mushroom Cultivation in the State", whose document this project has never been able to read, and nothing here says how that one would combine with anything.

A note on what changed in this reasoning, and what did not. This verdict used to rest, in part, on the cost norms here being "genuinely different" from central MIDH's, which was read as a sign of a separate, state-authored schedule. That reading was wrong: Rs 20 lakh / Rs 15 lakh / Rs 20 lakh is the central norm the current one replaced. The figures therefore distinguish nothing on their own, in either direction, and the verdict below is re-derived without them. Re-derived on what the document says it is. Its covering letter, on the Horticulture Commissionerate's own letterhead, names the instrument outright: "मिशन फॉर इन्टीग्रेटेड डवलपमेन्ट ऑफ हॉर्टीकल्चर के तहत राष्ट्रीय बागवानी मिशन" (National Horticulture Mission, under the Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture), and every page of the guideline it encloses carries the running header "NHM Guidline: 2022-23". This is Rajasthan issuing the central mission's own programme to its districts, at the central mission's own cost norms of the day, not a second state instrument standing beside it. That is the same reading this project already applied to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh, which print the current central norms under their own letterheads. A Rajasthan mushroom applicant draws one subsidy under MIDH, not two: 'excluded'. Two things this verdict deliberately does NOT rest on, and does not assert. First, the affidavit: condition 1 requires a शपथ-पत्र with the proposal but does not state, in this section, what it must declare, and the "no assistance from any other institution" wording that appears elsewhere in the same guideline sits on a different component's row and is still not read across to mushroom. Second, the rate: a 2022-23 guideline printing the then-current central norm says nothing about what Rajasthan quotes today, and the current central Annexure V, at ₹30 lakh, is where a Rajasthan grower should start.

The document's own front matter states outright: "Norms are as per the norms of Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture – Operational Guidelines, 2025, GOI" (printed p.1), this is Telangana's own implementation of the central scheme, not an independently invented one, and every cost norm and percentage in its Mushroom Cultivation section is identical to central MIDH Annexure V, item III (Production Unit ₹30 lakh/unit at 100%/40%; Spawn making unit ₹20 lakh/unit at 100%/40%; Compost making Unit ₹30 lakh/unit at 100%/40%; Low Cost/Small Scale unit ₹2 lakh/unit at 50%, max 5/beneficiary, see MIDH's own record on this site). Marked 'excluded' rather than 'stackable' so a Telangana farmer is never shown this record's rules and midh-2025's as two independent, additive sums for the same component.

A note on what changed in this reasoning, and what did not. This verdict used to rest, in part, on the cost norms here being "genuinely different" from central MIDH's, which was read as a sign of a separate, state-authored schedule. That reading was wrong: Rs 20 lakh / Rs 15 lakh / Rs 20 lakh is the central norm the current one replaced. The figures therefore distinguish nothing on their own, in either direction, and the verdict below is re-derived without them. Re-derived on what the document says it is, which it says three times over. Its own opening heading reads "Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH) - A Centrally Sponsored Scheme"; the table these rows sit in is headed "Cost norms and pattern of assistance under Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH)"; and the rows themselves sit under "III Mushrooms", the same item number and heading the central Annexure V uses, carrying the central Pattern of Assistance sentence verbatim ("40% of cost, for meeting the expenditure on infrastructure, as credit linked back ended subsidy"). This is the central scheme's own table as Tripura's State Horticulture Mission publishes it, at the norms of the day, which is the same reading this project already applied to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. A Tripura mushroom applicant draws one subsidy under MIDH, not two: 'excluded'. Practical effect on a Tripura grower, checked rather than assumed: none downward. Tripura is an NE state, so the current central Annexure V pays it 50% of ₹30 lakh on a production unit and 50% of ₹20 lakh on a spawn unit, more than this table on both components and on components this table does not carry at all, so the engine was already selecting central MIDH over these rows before this verdict changed. What the verdict changes is the reason a reader is given: these rows are not a second, forgone entitlement, they are the same entitlement at a superseded price.

A note on what changed in this reasoning, and what did not. This verdict used to rest, in part, on the cost norms here being "genuinely different" from central MIDH's, which was read as a sign of a separate, state-authored schedule. That reading was wrong: Rs 20 lakh / Rs 15 lakh / Rs 20 lakh is the central norm the current one replaced. The figures therefore distinguish nothing on their own, in either direction, and the verdict below is re-derived without them. Re-derived on what the table itself says it is, which is not a state scheme at all. Its own heading reads "National Horticulture Mission Programme and Assistance", NHM being the central mission MIDH subsumed, and two of its columns are headed "NHM Share" and "Max.Limit", carrying "40" and "800000" for the production-unit row. A department publishing the NATIONAL mission's own share of a national cost norm is restating the central scheme, not running a second one beside it, which is the same reading this project already applied to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh, each of which prints the CURRENT central norms under its own letterhead. This table prints the norms of the same central scheme one generation earlier. A Uttar Pradesh mushroom applicant draws one subsidy under MIDH, not two: 'excluded'. What this does NOT decide, and must not be read as deciding, is which figure a UP applicant is quoted today. This table is archive-recovered, labelled 2015-16 and invisible on the department's own live page (see the file-level note), so this record's status stays 'unknown'; the current central Annexure V, at ₹30 lakh, is the live central norm and is where a UP grower should start, not this page.

This record and MIDH are not two schemes, they are one. The approval letter is the Government of India authorising West Bengal to implement the National Horticulture Mission under MIDH, and binding the spending to MIDH's own norms; the State's own RTI disclosure says the department runs no subsidy programme of its own. Marked 'excluded' so a West Bengal applicant is never shown a state entitlement and a central one as two separate sums for the same growing room.

This document states outright that the UT's horticulture programme ("Dadra & Nagar Haveli Horticulture Mission") is the National Horticulture Mission "implemented" locally, with "financial assistance ... provided to farmers as per norms of the National Horticulture Mission" -- an explicit statement that no independent DNH rate exists on top of the central scheme now succeeded by MIDH, which is this project's own stated rule for excluding identical-central-norm stacking. No mushroom rate exists under either scheme in any case, so this has no practical effect, but is recorded for accuracy rather than left unconfirmed when the document itself settles it.

This record and MIDH are not two schemes, they are one. The approval letter is the Government of India authorising Puducherry to implement the National Horticulture Mission under MIDH, and binding the spending to MIDH's own cost norms. Marked 'excluded' so a Puducherry applicant is never shown a UT entitlement and a central one as two separate sums for the same growing room. The same reasoning already applied to Haryana, whose own budget memos defer to the central norms in the same way.