STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SRI BAJRANG UDYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 8.1.1992 passed in CWJC No. 1395/91 (R), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the decision of the respondents as communicated vide letter dated 1.3.1991 whereby they have refused to grant State capital Subsidy to the industrial unit of the respondent petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner -respondent inter alia was that the unit was registered as Small Sale Industry in 1988 and was granted a licence to run the industry of Modern Rice Mills at Chakulia. The petitioner constructed its factory sheds and buildings for starting the said industry. The work of constructions commenced on 25.2.1988 and was completed on or about 20.5.1988. The petitioner then taken electrical connection by entering into an agreement with the respondent Board on 5.6.1989 and started production in the factory with effect from 5.7.1989. Petitioner respondents further (sic) was that the State of Bihar adopted industrial resolution dated 5.9.1986 in terms whereof it was decided that all industrial undertakings established in the State of Bihar shall be provided with various incentives, according to the said resolution, petitioner was entitled to capital subsidy at the rate of 15% of the fixed capital investment. Petitioner accordingly applied for grant of the said subsidy before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Singhbhum which was recommended by the General Manager. However, respondent no. 5, the Deputy Director of Industries, Government of Bihar by the impugned letter intimated that in view of resolution adopted by the State Level Committee, no subsidy is payable to Rice Mills. The petitioner then made a representation before the Director of Industries which was ultimately rejected by him.

(3.) MR . R.N. Shay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant State of Bihar assailed the impugned judgment as being contrary to law and the facts available on record. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error of record in holding that no counter -affidavit has been filed by the State when as a matter of fact counter -affidavit was filed by the State on 10.12.1991 and supplementary counter -affidavit was filed on 16.12.1991 and thereafter the matter was heard at length and the impugned judgment was delivered on 8.1.1992. Mr. Sahay then submitted that the subsequent resolution dated 21.1.1990 whereby the grant of capital subsidy to Rice Mills Industry was withdrew, came into effect from 1.1.1990 and the petitioner in his application for capital subsidy admitted that the unit is expected to go for production from July. 1990.