MATILAL JINDAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was the contempt petitioner in Civil Rule No. 2023/89, has filed this petition against the then Director of Industries Deptt. Govt. of Assam and convenor State Level Committee alleging deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 20-1-92 passed by the High Court in the above mentioned Civil Rule.

(2.) Petitioner is one of the writ petitioners in the Civil Rule No. 2023/89 which was finally disposed of on 20-1-89 by this Court directing the respondent/contemner to convene meeting of State Level Committee (SLC) within fortnight and the SLC to consider the claims of the petitioners again within another fortnight (Annexure-A to the contempt petition). Accordingly petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 by a notice through his advocate who is the member convener of State Level Committee constituted by the Govt. of Assam to deal with the subsidy matters under Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CISS) and Transport Subsidy Schemes (TSS) annexing a copy of the judgment, for information and necessary action and the same was received by the respondent No. 2 on 19-2-92. Petitioner waited for a long time for response but nothing was done by the respondents and when repeated reminders failed to act and finding no other way filed the contempt petition. It is contended that due to non disbursement of subsidies, the industry M/s Jindal Chemical Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. has faced acute financial crises. It is also urged in the contempt petition that "unless something is done for immediate release of the subsidies, the industrial unit of the petitioner has to be closed down under compelling circumstances." It is also contended that further claim for subsidies under 'CISS' and 'TSS' have been placed, amounting several lacks of rupees pending for sanction and disbursement and that there is no other alternative and efficacious remedy except filing this contempt petition before this Court as because, the opposite parties/respondents are not in a mood to comply with or obey this Court's judgment (underline supplied). It is also submitted that there is deliberate and willful disobedience of the judgment of this Court and therefore matter has been brought to the notice of this Court, whose lawful interest relating to disbursement of subsidy under the above mentioned schemes is involved. That the petitioner has been authorised by co-writ petitioners to prefer this contempt petition.

(3.) The alleged contemner, respondent No. 2 Shri Nilakanta Barua filed reply to the show cause notice and has averred that the State Level Committee took up the matter of the petitioner company. That immediately after receipt of this Court's order dated 20-1-92, various amounts for the period from 1-1-87 to 30-9-89 were 'approved and information regarding the sanctioning of the subsidies in favour of the petitioner was informed to the Senior Govt. Advocate, by letter dated 15-5-92 (Annexure-A to the show cause reply). The further averment is that the claim of the petitioner for subsidy was under the CIS scheme of the Govt. of India; that Govt. of India discontinued the scheme with effect from 30-9-88 and since huge number of claims were pending at the time when the scheme was discontinued, the Industries Department convened meeting of State Level Committee on 28-9-89, in which the claim of the petitioner for subsidy was also placed. But as the Govt. of India, vide letter dated 29-7-89 stopped to accept the proposal of the State Level Committee the claim of the petitioner, was not entertained. Due to this discontinuation of the scheme by the Govt. of India, thereafter, the State Govt. introduced a scheme under the name and style 'State Capital Investment Subsidy,' in 1991, giving effect from 1-10-88 and raised the percentage from 25% to 30% with a ceiling of Rs. 10.00 lacks. That on receipt of the order of this Court, the meeting under State Capital Investment Subsidy (SCIS) scheme was convened on 13-3-92 and decision was taken in favour of the petitioner and accordingly action has already been taken under SCIS and Transport Subsidy Scheme in favour of the petitioner and by letter dated 14-8-92 (Annexure-B) the petitioner was informed by the Director.