KRUPALI STONES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a registered private limited Company has preferred this writ petition while praying the following reliefs:-

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, as set up in the writ petition are that the State of Rajasthan has announced State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for New Industries, 1990 (hereinafter referred as "the Scheme of 1990") wherein it is provided that benefit of subsidy will be extended to the industrial units on fulfilling certain terms and conditions. The petitioner claimed that it has complied with the requisite conditions for grant of subsidy and entitled to receive the amount of subsidy and, therefore, applied under the Scheme of 1990 for grant of subsidy vide application Annex.2. It is stated by the petitioner that the scheme was partially amended vide notification dated 3.2.1998 and the benefit of scheme was extended to such unit which made 25% investment upto 31.3.1998 and commenced commercial production within six months thereafter i.e. upto 30.9.1998. It is claimed by the petitioner that though the petitioner-company started commercial production within the said limit, the application filed by the petitioner-company for grant of subsidy was summarily rejected by the respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 8.4.1999. It is stated in the petition that the order dated 8.4.1999 is absolutely cryptic, non-speaking, arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law. Though the petitioner is a diversification unit, the respondents have wrongly classified the petitioner company under the expansion category. The petitioner further sated that it has submitted a representations dated 2.12.1999 (Annex.7) before the respondents but the respondents have failed to consider such legitimate request of the petitioner for grant of subsidy and compelled the petitioner to approach this Court under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner has further claimed that though the Commercial Taxes Department has granted exemption to the petitioner under the Diversification Category, the petitioner was wrongly classified by the respondents under the Expansion Category instead of Diversification Category. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner unit was earlier found eligible for the benefit of subsidy for its Granite project and in such circumstances, the denial of grant of subsidy to the petitioner-company vide order dated 8.4.1999 is absolutely illegal and the order dated 8.4.1999 is liable to be quashed.

(3.) A rejoinder to the reply is filed on behalf of the petitioner and it is claimed that the contention of the respondents that the benefit of the Scheme can only be granted to the new industrial unit and not to the Diversification / Expansion unit, is absolutely incorrect because from the perusal of the Scheme of 1990 itself, it is clear that the benefit of the Subsidy Scheme was also to be given to the diversification or expansion unit. In rejoinder, the petitioner has placed on record the copy of registration certificate issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner under the Scheme of 1990 and the petitioner has also placed documents on record, from which the fact of granting benefit of subsidy to other similarly situated units is proved.