UTTARANCHAL FORGINGS INSUTRY Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli. Advocate appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 181 of 2005 (M/B), Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate appearing for the petitioners in rest of the writ petitions, Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate appearing for the State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal Limited (hereafter referred to as SIDCUL), Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) and Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) THIS judgment shall cover all the above -mentioned writ petitions. All the petitioners are the industrial units, admittedly, operating in the State of Uttaranchal. All the units are either in the industrial estates or in the spot zone industrial areas. It seems that with a view to give a fillip to the industrialization of the State of Uttaranchal the Central Government floated few schemes giving tax holidays and or subsidies to such industries. The tax holidays were in respect of the Central Excise, Income Tax, and State Investments subsidies were also provided for.

(3.) IT so happened that this was to be done on the basis of the recommendation of the State Government and the SIDCUL. Accordingly, it seems that the State Government supplied, in consultation with SIDCUL, certain khasra numbers and certain sites recognizing the rights of those industries to be included for the benefits of the Central Government schemes. The petitioners' case is, however, that their industries, which when either the existing industries or the industries, which were being developed were left out by mistake. It is commonly understood that the recommendations are made on the basis of the reports of the District Industrial Officer to SIDCUL and the recommendations, then, were forwarded to the Central Government for including the concerned industries in the benefit zone of the schemes.