KAMPER CONCAST LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993 of the Government of Bihar in clause 6 relating to subsidy on power consumption provided as follows: -

(2.) ON a plain reading of the afore -quoted clause it is clear that industrial units, covered by the policy that came into production between 1.4.93 to 31.3.98 (i.e. the period of the policy) would get power subsidy as indicated in the clause for fiye years from the date of production/of such expansion/diversification. In other words, if an industrial unit covered by the policy came into production on 1.2.1998, it would get the power subsidy in terms of clause 6 of the Policy till 31.1.2004. It seems that the respondent authorities do not wish to understand and accept this simple fact and that has given rise to this unnecessary and avoidable litigation.

(3.) ON 5.7.2001 the petitioner submitted its claim for power subsidy for the period from October 1998 to May, 2001 (Annexure -6) but the B.I.C.I.C.O. declined to release the amount of electric subsidy in favour of the petitioner on the plea that the Commissioner, Industries Department had issued letter no. 2616 dated 11.7.2000 forbidding payment of any subsidy under Industrial Policy, 1993. A copy of the letter, dated 11.7.2000 issued by the Commissioner, Industries Department is at Annexure 7/A. This letter simply states that the period of validity of the Industrial Policy, 1993 expired on 31.3.1998 and that of the Industrial Policy, 1998 also came to an end on 31.8.2000. The last date (31.3.1998) for entertaining any claims arising from the Industrial Policy, 1993 were also over but it was noticed that even then fresh claims arising under the Industrial Policy, 1993 were being forwarded for consideration. The letters simply asked all concerned not to forward and/or entertain any fresh claims arising under the 1993 Industrial Policy, that is to say, claims for power subsidy and/or other benefits being raised freshly and for the first time on the plea that the effective date of production expansion/diversification of the unit fell between 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998. The letter did not say that claims that has already accrued and were duly sanctioned by the competent authorities would be discontinued because the period of validity of the Industrial Policy was over notwithstanding the clause that the unit would enjoy the incentive for five years from the date of production. In fact any such direction would have been contrary to the Industrial Policy and hence, illegal and unenforceable.