AMBIKA RESORTS PVT. LTD. Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition to seek a writ of mandamus whereby a direction is sought to the respondent department to release the capital subsidy claim of Rs. 75 lakhs currently withheld by the respondent department. I take the benefit of the judgment rendered by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, namely, W.P. (C) 5007/2010, Mahipal Singh Vs. Ministry of Tourism and various other cases decided on 02.06.2011 by S. Muralidhar, J and set out the background of this case as set out in the said judgment: -

(2.) THE background to the above scheme is that the DOT had been issuing notifications in 2003 and 2004 to encourage growth of Budget Hotel Accommodation for promotion of tourism in the country. In supersession of those notifications, the DOT issued on 30th September 2004 a notification announcing the scheme of "Incentive to Accommodation Infrastructure". The objective of the scheme was to provide incentives to newly approved hotel projects in 1 to 3 Star and Heritage (Basic) categories in the country except the four metropolitan cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. The said scheme for grant of capital subsidy was to be effective for the whole 10th Five Year Plan from 1st April 2002 to 31st March 2007. The scheme would apply to all hotels in 1 to 3 Star and Heritage (Basic) categories "where the hotel projects have been completed and classified during the 10th Plan Period." The incentive was to be in the form of "capital grant of 10% of the total principal loan taken from designated financial institutions or upto Rs. 25 lakhs to one star, Rs. 50 lakhs to two star and Rs. 75 lakhs to three star and the heritage basic category projects which is less". It was inter alia clarified that "in the case of heritage hotels where the investment is required mainly for refurbishment of existing building, which includes creation of additional facilities and accommodation, the incentive will be available on the main loan only and not towards any additional loan.

(3.) AS aforesaid a batch of various writ petitions was decided by the aforesaid decision in the case of Mahipal Singh (supra). In those cases as well the grant of subsidy was declined by the Ministry of Tourism on the basis that the commissioning of the hotel as well as the process of classification had not been completed by 31.03.2008 which was stated to be the cut off date. This Court held that what was relevant was that the hotels in question had been completed and commissioned prior to 31.03.2008 and it was not necessary that the process of classification should also have been completed before the said date as the petitioners were not in control of the said process and they had all applied for classification prior to the cut off date of 31.03.2008. The observations made by the Court in the said decision read as follows: -