LIYAKATH ALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is running an industrial concern engaged in the processing and preservation of chicken, has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and P4, by which the petitioners' application for getting the benefits under the Entrepreneur Support Scheme (ESS) stood rejected by the respondents.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

(3.) Ext.P1 application was submitted by the petitioner for getting the benefits under ESS with the 3rd respondent herein. The 3rd respondent by Ext.P2, addressed the 2nd respondent herein, for appropriate clarifications as to whether the petitioners' activity referred to above is entitled for the benefits under the scheme. The matter was placed before the State Level Committee on 9/5/2017 and Ext.P3 is the decision taken by the state committee. In Ext.P3, the committee took up the stand that, the activity carried on by the petitioner cannot be termed to be "manufacturing" and therefore there is no value addition or an end product having a distinct name/character. Therefore, the committee concluded that the petitioner is not eligible for the investment support under the ESS. Relying on Ext.P3, 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 to the petitioner rejecting the application at Ext.P1.