UNION OF INDIA Vs. VISION ISPAT PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE seven writ appeals being WA No. 31 (SH) 2008, WA No. 30 (SH) 2008, WA No. 32 (SH) 2008, WA No. 26 (SH) 2008, WA No. 27 (SH) 2008, WA No. 28 (SH) 2008 and WA No. 29 (SH) 2008, relate to WPC No. 279 (SH) 2007, WPC No. 280 (SH) 2007, WP (C) No. 281 (SH) 2007, WP (C) No. 282 (SH) 2007, WP (C) No. 283 (SH) 2007, WP (C) No. 284 (SH) 2007 and WP (C) No. 285 (SH) 2007 respectively. All the said seven writ petitions, which had been filed challenging the refusal of the respondent authorities in the writ petitions to release to the writ petitioners the financial assistance under the Scheme for promotion of Industries in the North East (SPINE) in terms of the letter dated 22. 6. 2006 of the Chief of Division, NEC Cell, Planning and Development Department, were disposed of by a Single Judge of this Court vide a common judgment dated 20. 06. 2008. Purportedly, being aggrieved by the said common judgment, the present writ appeals have been filed challenging its legality. Since similar facts and common question of law are involved in these writ appeals they are heard and proceeded together.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. S. C. Shyam, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of all the appellants and Mrs. N. Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents writ petitioners.

(3.) ON perusal of the records before the Court, we find that the learned Single Judge, after due hearing of the parties and consideration of their pleadings and materials before the Court, held to the effect that the Scheme known as "scheme for Promotion of Industries in the North East" or in otherwise as SPINE was launched by the respondent authorities to bring about speedy industrialization of the North Eastern Region through the NEC, that the policy decision of the respondent authorities for subsidizing 25% of the project cost or Rs. 50 lakhs whichever was less subject to a maximum limit of Rs. 50 lakhs and as deemed proper by the recommending authority under the terms stipulated constituted a valid and unequivocal promise on the part of the respondent authorities and that the respondent authorities expected interested persons to act on the said promise.