SYNTEX THR'ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India for the prayer that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to the Respondent no.1 to quash and set aside the demand not dated 15.09.1990 and also to quash and set aside the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 and also to protect the possession of the petitioner's unit situated at GIDC Estate, Waghodia, Dist. Vadodara, on the grounds stated in the petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly summarized are that the petitioner no.1 is a sole proprietor established firm, of which the petitioner no.2 is the proprietor, who has applied for the subsidy in the scheme under "Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme For new Industries in Backward Areas" introduced by the Government vide Resolution No.19.08.1983. The scheme provided for the subsidy, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions. The petitioner had, therefore, applied for the cash subsidy with the project report. The unit of the petitioner was established to manufacture Plastic Woven Sacks with an annual capacity of 175 mt using the power loom method. The District Industries Centre (DIC) issued the certificate of registration for grant of cash subsidy on 31.12.1984 and the District Industries Centre sanctioned subsidy to the tune of Rs.3,94,000/. However, after the subsidy was released, as stated in detail in the petition, the petitioner is said to have committed breach of the conditions or failed to fulfill the conditions for such cash subsidy. Therefore, the recovery is sought to be made, which has led to filing of the present petition. The reference is made to various correspondences, which includes that the District Industries Centre has called up to produce certain information and it was observed that the petitioner was not a manufacturing unit for 5 years.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Mitul Shelat for the petitioner referred to the papers at length and tried to submit that the purported exercise of powers for refund are exercised as per the Clause 14(B). He has referred to the final notice dated 15.09.1990 issued by the District Industries Centre. However, he referred to the communication dated 03.04.1991 addressed to the Mamlatdar and submitted that the unit could not be closed for five years as stipulated in the conditions. He has submitted that the unit has continued and it has kept growing. He has submitted that due to change in the policy by the Government of India, the demand of the plastic begs was reduced and the jute packaging was permitted. He, therefore, submitted that the Circular Looms was easy then the Conventional Looms, therefore, they had to close down the looms making plastic fabrics for some time.