KWALITY REFRACTORIESLTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order and decision dated 14.10.96 of respondent No. 3, the State Level Capital Subsidy Committee, whereby the petitioner's representation dated 21.9.96 for his disbursement of capital subsidy has been rejected. The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent to disburse the amount of capital subsidy to the extent of Rs. 1,58,176.00 for which the petitioner has applied in respect of the first expansion and also for disbursement of the amount of capital subsidy to the extent of Rs. 3,26,556.00 which the petitioner has applied in respect of second expansion, as both the applications for the grant of benefits were made on the basis of Resolution No. 13730 dated 1.9.86 passed in Bihar Gazette Extraordinary 513 dated 9.9.1986.

(2.) The petitioner's case in brief is that Government of Bihar adopted aforesaid resolution in 1986 whereby Government made unqualified promises regarding number of incentives to large, medium, small and tiny industries to set up in the State of Bihar for accelerating the industrial growth in Bihar. The resolution, inter alia, provides for grant of capital subsidy to the industrial unit and paragraph 5 of the policy provides that in the district of Singhbhum the capital investment subsidy @ 15% of the fixed capital investment will be admissible to new industrial units coming into production or after 17.11.80 subject to maximum of Rs. 15 lakhs grant for capital investment subsidy. Petitioner's further case is that clause 15 of the said policy speaks of the benefit being extended to those units going for expansion and diversification. Petitioner claims that it has made first expansion of its unit and had increased its production capacity and the total amount spent for the first expansion was from its own resources. Petitioner, on the basis of aforesaid policy 1986, made an application for grant of capital subsidy on 19.1.88 which was received by the office of the General Manager, District Industry Centre on 20.1.88. Petitioner again made an application claiming the aforesaid benefits on the ground that it has made second expansion of its unit and started manufacturing refractoriness products. It is stated that second expansion was made after taking loan from the Bihar State Financial Corporation. Application claiming subsidy for the second expansion was made on 5.1.90. Petitioner's further case is that despite several letters and reminders respondents failed and neglected to disburse the capital subsidy to the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid policy of 1986. Petitioner having no way filed a writ application in this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 2814/85 (R) for direction to the respondents for disbursement of the amount of capital investment subsidy on the first and second expansion. The said writ application was disposed of on 18.7.96 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation before the authority concerned for payment of capital subsidy and the respondents were directed to dispose of the representation within specified time. Pursuant to that order petitioner said to have filed representation on 21.9.96 substantiating its claim for grant of capital subsidy and said representation was considered by the State-Level Subsidy Committee on its meeting on 14.10.96 and the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order decision dated 14.10.96. Copy of the said order decision dated 14.10.96 is annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ application.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, State Capital Subsidy Committee through Director of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. The case of respondent is that the petitioner's unit originally started functioning since 1972. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chaibasa issued new permanent registration certificate, vide letter dated 11.12.87 to the old unit in which manufacturing of the goods of the unit has been mentioned as cancellation of minerals and refractoriness products and the date of the production has been mentioned as 10.4.72 and 1.9.87. It is stated that the expansion scheme of the petitioner's unit was approved by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chaibasa, vide letter dated 12.1.88. In the sanctioned order, it has been mentioned that the date of beginning and closer as 1.4.81 and 30.4.84 respectively. Date of production after expansion has been mentioned as 4.5.84 and the total capital investment of Rs. 10,54,312.42. Respondents' further case is that the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chaibasa, vide letter dated 24.3.88, has recommended for grant of capital subsidy after the expansion of the petitioner's unit. On receipt of the recommendation, the State-Level Subsidy Committee in its meeting dated 18.5.88 considered the case of the petitioner's unit for the grant of capital subsidy and sought some clarification from the District Industries Centre, Chaibasa, which was communicated by the District Industries Centre, vide letter dated 22.11.88. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner for grant of capital subsidy was considered by the State-Level Subsidy Committee on 6.8.89 and 3.1.91 when it was found that the petitioner's unit is an old unit and the expansion scheme was prior to 1986 and accordingly, claim of the petitioner was rejected and the same was communicated to the petitioner, vide letter dated 4.4.91. Lastly, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the State-Level Subsidy Committee again reconsidered the fresh representation which was filed by the petitioner pursuant to direction of this Court and it was again found that date of production of the petitioner's unit after expansion is 4.5.84 and petitioner's unit made an application for grant of capital subsidy before the District Industries Centre, Chaibasa on 21.5.88. According to respondents, petitioner's unit ought to have made an application for grant of capital subsidy in 1984 under industrial policy 1981 but it had failed to do so. The industrial policy 1986 came into effect from September 1986 and hence petitioner's claim is not entertainable.