HARWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Punjab with a view to promoting growth of industries in the State notified the 'New Industrial Policy 1989' as per its notification dated 30.3.1989 which, inter alia, provides for the grant of various incentives for new industries started in the State on or after the 1st day of April, 1989. In order to implement the scheme of incentives set out in the industrial policy, the President of India made rules known as 'Punjab Industrial Incentives Code under the Industrial Policy, 1989' (for short, the Code).

(2.) Petitioners are running their industrial units at Amritsar in the State of Punjab which are said to have been established some time during the years 1990-1992. They applied in Form S-I for the grant of capital subsidy which is one of the incentives offered under the code for the development of industries in the State. The applications were submitted on different dates to the District Officer within the prescribed time. Since the amount of subsidy claimed by the petitioners was less than Rs. 2.25 lacs, their applications as per rules were processed and placed before the district level committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. This committee in its meeting held on 15.12.1992 approved the grant of subsidy to a number of small scale industrial units including the petitioners. However, in spite of the capital subsidy having been sanctioned by the committee, the same has not been disbursed to the petitioners so far. They made several representations to the Director of industries as also to the State Government alleging that Mr. Pritam Singh, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Amritsar and the Project Manager along with the Office Superintendent were indulging in corruption and were demanding money for getting the sanctioned amount released to the petitioners. Harwinder Singh, one of the petitioners also filed an affidavit in support of the allegations made in the representation. Since the subsidy has not been disbursed to the petitioners so far, they filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or a mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the same.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that before any industrial unit could avail of any of the incentives offered under the new industrial policy and the code, it was necessary for it to purchase new plant and machinery for starting its production in accordance with the approved project report. Rule 3.15 of the code has been referred to in this regard, according to which machinery and plant means only new machinery and plant purchased by the unit for starting its production in accordance with the approved project report. It is further pleaded that an industrial unit applying for any subsidy has also to file an affidavit that it complied with all the terms and conditions mentioned in the code. It is submitted that the petitioners filed false affidavits to this effect and they produced bogus bills to show that they had purchased new plant and machinery. According to the respondents, the petitioners have not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Rules 3.15 and 3.19 of the code and hence they were found ineligible for the grant of capital subsidy and it is for this reason that the subsidy sanctioned to them by the district level committee has not been disbursed. The respondents have relied on the reports submitted by the Departmental Officers at the district level who after inspecting the units of the petitioners and making inquiries at their own level reported that the petitioners did not comply with Rule 3.15 of the code and that they had obtained bogus bills for claiming the subsidy. In the replication, the petitioners have controverted the averments made in the written statement and reiterated that the detailed information including the bills and the datewise expenditure on land, building, machinery as well as installation charges was incorporated in para 6 of each application and all the applications were verified by respondent No. 6 before the district level committee sanctioned the subsidy. It has also been reiterated that the respondents have for extraneous reasons withheld the amount duly sanctioned to the petitioners.