JAYAHAR FIRE WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in W.P. No. 11221 of 1989 is as follows: ?To issus a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of the writ calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in Letter No. 1. Dis. 866/C/88 dated 3.11.1988 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to pay the subsidy at 15% on the investment of Rs. 4,81,000 made by the petitioner in pursuance of the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme ? THE prayer in W.P. No. 11222 of 1989 is as follows: ?To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of the wric calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in letter No. 1. Dis. 529/C/88 dated 1.12.1988 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to pay the subsidy at 15% on the investment of Rs 21,65,419 made by the peiitioner in pursuance of the Central Investment Subsidy-Scheme ?

(2.) THE allegations made in both the petitions are almost similar. THE petitioner registered himself for grant of Central Invest ment Subsidy Scheme which was in force till September, 1988. When the peiitioner filed all the required particulars for grant of sub sidy for the industry run by the petitioner, (sic) and register his unit for gran* of subsidy, he was informed that he was not entitled to get subsidy on the ground that he was not entitled to have the subsidy applied for. THE petitioner alleges that he made huge invest ment in the industry on the basis of the pro mise held out by the respondents and the first respondent is estopped from going back on the promise made by it. It is further alleged that the first respondent knows that the pro mise or the representation would be acted upon and hence the doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply to the facts of this case and the petitioner is entitled to enforce the representation made by the first respondent. THE first respondent made wide publicity of the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme It is also alleged that the petitioner has fulfilled his part of the obligation and he filed the application as required by the Scheme and has also registereo with the respondents. THE petitioner alleged further that the petitioner's industry is a manufacturing unit and the respondent has not even applied its mind whether the petitioner is a manufacturing unit or not. It is also stated that even before the first respondent revised the guidelines for eligibility, the petitioner fulfilled his part of the obligation and that it is not open to the respondents to say that the petitioner is not entitled to subsidy in view of the revised Scheme.

(3.) MR, V. Sridevan, Special Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 2 and 3, has taken me through various paragraphs in the Scheme and contends that the petitioner's application has not been considered by the State Level Committee at all and that no question of estoppel arises in this case because no right accrues in favour of the petitioner before getting sanction from the State Level Committee. The learned counsel contends that the State Level Committee has to go into the merits of each case' and decide whether an industrial unit qualifies for grant of subsidy and also decide the quantum of subsidy. The learned Special Government Pleader points out that if the petitioner has done anything in regard to the alleged industry, before sanction has been ordered by the respondents it is done at his own risk and simply because the petitioner has registered his application, that does not mean that the petitioner will get subsidy automatically.