HINDEUTSCH IMPEX PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the decision dated 26/4/96 (Annexure-16), of the State-Level Capital Subsidy Committee, insofar as it relates to the petitioner,and the follow-up letter dated 17/5/96 (Annexure-7), issued by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner is being denied the differential of the subsidy promised to them by the respondents to the petitioner.

(2.) The Government of Bihar, in the Department of Industries, issued its resolution No. 13730, dated 1/9/86 (Annexure-4), whereby the State Government declared an industrial policy to promote industries, and to revive sick industries, within the State of Bihar, and promised different subsidies to such entrepreneurs in an effort in that direction. The petitioner is an industry which came into existence after 1-4-83, and, according to para 4.2(c) of the same, Central subsidy in the specified districts @ 10% with respect to investment made on fixed capital assets on or after 1-4-83 was admissible to an industrial unit subject to a maximum of Rs. 10 lacs. Besides this, additional amount of 5% of the investment on the fixed assets on or after 1-4-83 will be admissible to the industrial unit subject to maximum of Rs. 5 lacs as the State Capital Subsidy, thus making a total of 15% of the subsidy subject to the maximum of Rs. 15 lacs. Paragraph 7.2 of the said resolution stated that small-scale industries, which the petiioner-Company is, will get subsidy @ 25% of the cost of purchase and installation of captive diesel/K.oil generating sets, subject to a limit of Rs. 5 lacs. Respondent No. 5 (the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd.) had sanctioned and granted a term loan of Rs. 86.26 lacs to the petitioner to set up an industry, vide its letter dated 21-6-89 (Annexure-5), which has a number of Annexures, Annexure-C is relevant in the present context, and the relevant portion of which is set out herein below for the facilities of quick reference: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_297_CCC2_2001Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The aforesaid industrial policy dated 1-9-86 (Anhexure 4) was partially modified by the State Government vide Annexure-6, paragraph 2.2 of which states that "the maximum amount of the State capital subsidy payable to a unit shall be Rs.15 Lacs (Rs. 20 lacs in the case of units notified in Growth Centres, Hundred percent export oriented units, and NRI- owned units)...". In other words, the entire industrial subsidy meant for small-scale industries was to be provided by the State Government, instead of the major portion provided by the Central Government, as was the case earlier. Thus,the entire subsidy of Rs. 15 lacs was after issuance of Annexure-6 to be provided by the State Government It is the petitioner's case that it is neither a unit notified in Growth Centres, nor is export-oriented unit, nor NRI-owned unit, but is a small scale industry. Pursuant to issuance of the said revised industrial policy dated 21-2-90 (Annexure 6), Respondent No.5 had revised the petitioner's project, vide its letter No Proj/ HIPL/189/4558, dated 8-3-91 (Annexure 7), the relevant portion of which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference-. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_297_CCC2_2001Html2.htm</FRM> It is thus manifest that even after applying the revised industrial policy, respondent No.5 had stated that the subsidy admissible to the petitioner was to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs. Respondent No.6 had recorded its minutes dated 8-3-91, reviewing the position with respect to the petitioner, the relevant portion of which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_297_CCC2_2001Image1.jpg</IMG>